DRDC-RDDC-2015-C247 Modular Fighting Rig (MFR) Pilot Trial

Transcription

DRDC DOCUMENT NUMBER: DRDC-RDDC-2015-C247
Modular Fighting Rig (MFR) Pilot Trial Report
CFB Valcartier
28 September to 9 October 2009
Prepared by:
C. Ste Croix, A. Morton, and H. Angel
Humansystems, Incorporated
111 Farquhar St., 2nd floor
Guelph, ON N1H 3N4
(519) 836 5911
Contract No. W8486-094085/001/TOR
Task Authorization No. 4500740536
On behalf of
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Defence Research and Development Canada Toronto
1133 Sheppard Avenue West
P.O. Box 2000
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M3M 3B9
DRDC-Toronto Scientific Authority:
Major Linda Bossi
416-635-2197
Prepared by Contractor on: March 2010
The scientific or technical validity of this Contractor Report is entirely the responsibility of the
contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D
Canada.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2015
© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2015
Humansystems® Incorporated
MFR Pilot Trial Report
Page i
Page ii
Abstract
The Canadian Forces are actively engaged in operations overseas and are in need of a new modular
fighting rig (MFR) to meet the demands of the current operational requirements in theatre. The aim
of this pilot trial was to provide a preliminary assessment of each of the Modular Fighting Rig
(MFR) candidates for usability, acceptability to soldiers, and compatibility with a range of soldier
equipment and tasks, as well as, a preliminary assessment and characterization of the preferred
placement of soldier load items. This pilot trial was also used to evaluate and develop methods to
evaluate the modular fighting rig in future evaluations. In conjunction with a Soldier Integrated
Helmet System (SIHS) trial, a 10 day fit and evaluation trial was conducted at Canadian Forces
Bases (CFB) Valcartier from September 28 to October 9, 2009. Fourteen soldiers were required to
undertake a battery of human factors tests while wearing one of the MFR systems in a repeated
measures design. Human factors tests included assessments of fit, comfort, range of motion,
performance of select battle tasks, and equipment, vehicle, weapons, and clothing compatibility.
Data collection included anthropometric measurements, range of motion measurements,
questionnaires, focus groups, live fire performance measures, and Human Factors (HF) observer
assessments. Overall, the participants preferred MFR A1 as the most acceptable vest. Participants
noted that all of the features of A1 were acceptable for combat except for the current extraction
handle. Since MFR A1 is a part of the A system of front panels and back panels it can be
interchanged with either one of the back panels from MFR A2 or A3. Participants were then queried
on whether the entire A system was necessary for fielding and they noted that only certain parts are
necessary. The participants agreed that the only front panels that are necessary were from MFR A1
and A2, thus eliminating the webbing style front panel from MFR A3. Participants also agreed that
the only back panel that they would need was from MFR A2. Therefore, out of the 6 panels (3 front
and 3 back) these participants thought that only 3 panels would need to be supplied to accommodate
the majority of the soldiers. Recommendations on basic design principles for all soldiers to follow
when placing pouches on their MFR for the first time, if they had no prior experience with modular
tactical vests, are provided. Recommendations for future trials and changes to assessment protocols
are provided.
Page i
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Page ii
Executive Summary
The Tactical Vest (TV) currently in use by the Canadian Forces (CF) was developed as part of the
Clothe the Soldier (CTS) project in June 1995 in order to provide load carriage capabilities for the
Army. The current TV was developed using technology from the 1990s and reflects the doctrine
and operational requirements of that time. The CF is actively engaged in operations overseas and is
in need of a new TV, with modularity and more combat load capacity, to meet the demands of the
current operational requirements in theatre. All members of the CF must be able to perform
missions and tasks optimally in a variety of environments in order to protect themselves and others
during combat operations. As a result, the development of a new modular TV is seen as an
immediate requirement for the CF.
The aim of this pilot trial was to provide a preliminary assessment of five Modular Fighting Rig
(MFR) candidates, previously downselected from 12 by an expert user panel, for usability,
acceptability to soldiers, and compatibility with a range of soldier equipment and tasks. In addition,
a preliminary assessment and characterization of the preferred placement of soldier load items was
conducted. This pilot trial was also used to evaluate and develop methods to evaluate the modular
fighting rig in future evaluations. In conjunction with a Soldier Integrated Helmet System (SIHS)
trial, a 10 day fit and evaluation trial was conducted at Canadian Forces Bases (CFB) Valcartier
from September 28 to October 9, 2009. Participants were required to undertake a battery of human
factors tests while wearing one of the commercial-off-the-shelf MFR systems in a partially
balanced, repeated measures design. Human factors tests included assessments of fit, comfort,
range of motion, performance of select battle tasks, and tests of equipment, vehicle, weapons, and
clothing compatibility. Data collection included anthropometric measurements, range of motion
measurements, questionnaires, focus groups, live fire performance measures, and Human Factors
(HF) observer assessments. Although there were a total of five MFR systems evaluated during this
pilot trial, three of the systems (MFR A1, MFR A2, and MFR A3) were all part of a larger modular
system that utilized interchangeable front and back panels. The other two systems under
investigation were labelled MFR C and MFR F.
Participants completed a number of test stands that evaluated the compatibility of specific clothing,
weapons, and vehicles with the MFR systems. All of the MFR systems were found to be acceptable
with all of the clothing and vehicle compatibility tests. Except for MFR F with the M203 in the
standing position, all the MFRs were rated as being acceptable for weapons compatibility. MFR A1
received the highest acceptance ratings across the majority of the compatibility test stands, with the
majority of its ratings above ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Participants also evaluated the performance and function of the MFR systems during a number of
combat tasks, such as a march, a patrol, fighting in built up areas (FIBUA), obstacle course, live fire
drills, and gunfighter drills. Across all of these tasks MFR A1 was the most preferred system and
received the highest acceptability ratings across the vast majority of the criteria across all of the
combat tasks. MFR F was rated the least acceptable system during the march, patrol, FIBUA, the
obstacle course, and the live fire exercises. MFR A2 was rated the least acceptable system during
the gunfighter drills. During the obstacle task, only MFR A1 received acceptable ratings for at least
7 out of the 10 criteria. Only MFR A1 was rated as being acceptable with regards to stability and
ease of movement.
In an effort to assess the bulk of the MFRs, the circumference of the participants at the chest and
waist level was measured with each of the MFR systems. There was very little difference between
MFR systems in terms of chest circumference (bulk) as there is limited space at the chest level to
Page iii
carry any of the fighting load. However, at the waist level, MFR A1 contributed to the largest waist
circumference measurements and was found to be significantly larger than MFR A2 and MFR C. It
should be noted that bulk assessments were confounded by a lack of standardized pouch placement
(expected with a modular system), a factor amplified when participants chose to stack multiple
pouches.
The participants were asked to rate the physical discomfort of the MFRs. MFR F had the highest
number of physical discomfort occurrences with the main areas of discomfort being the shoulders
and the back of the neck. MFR A1 had the least amount of occurrences of physical discomfort; the
most common areas of physical discomfort were the shoulders, hips, and low back.
Participants evaluated the general features and specific individual features of the MFRs.
Participants preferred the front opening vests over the side opening vests. Front opening vests are
similar in operation to their in-service Tactical Vest. Participants also do not have to remove their
helmet when donning or doffing a front opening vest. Participants noted that they did not like the
MFRs that had waist attachment systems as they were hard to adjust and difficult for one person to
don and doff. Participants did not like the bib with D-ring and snaps or the internal pocket on MFR
C. Participants reported that shoulder, back, and waist adjustments, as well as the PALS on the
shoulder straps on MFR F were unacceptable. All of the specific features from MFRs A1 and A2
were rated as acceptable.
One of the aims of this trial was to develop a set of basic design principles for all soldiers to follow
when placing pouches on their MFR for the first time, if they had no prior experience with modular
tactical vests. Based on the results of the 10 day trial the following design principles are
recommended. All essential ammunition pouches should be located in the central portion of the vest
and be easily accessible to the soldier while all small radio pouches and other small items should be
located on the chest portion of the vest. Larger utility pouches should be located at the waist level
and to the side of essential ammunition pouches, with the medical pouch located near the back of
the vest at the waist level and accessible to other soldiers.
Overall, the participants preferred MFR A1 and rated it as the most acceptable vest. Participants
noted that all of the features of A1 were acceptable for combat except for the current extraction
handle. Since MFR A1 is a part of the A system of front panels and back panels it can be
interchanged with either one of the back panels from MFR A2 or A3. Participants were then queried
on whether the entire A system was necessary for fielding and they noted that only certain parts are
necessary. The participants agreed that the only front panels that are necessary were from MFR A1
and A2, thus eliminating the webbing style front panel from MFR A3. Participants also agreed that
the only back panel that they would need was from MFR A2. Therefore, out of the 6 panels (3 front
and 3 back) these participants thought that only 3 panels would need to be supplied to accommodate
the majority of the soldiers.
One of the main goals of the pilot trial was to standardize the testing and to identify any deficiencies
that can be addressed prior to a more in-depth controlled trial with users (planned in the future).
Some of the testing methods/ protocols that should be addressed in future MFR user trials are:
longer exposure to each MFR condition; include participants with operational experience; include
participants from each of the different infantry regiments; and identify and use appropriate
surrogates for ammunition, grenades, radios, and other fighting order items. Specific
recommendations for future trials and changes to assessment protocols are provided.
Page iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. viii
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Abbreviations and Definitions ......................................................................................................... 2
2.
Aim ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Test Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1 Modular Fighting Rigs ................................................................................................................ 5
3.3
Protocol ............................................................................................................................................ 8
3.4
Participants....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5
Soldiers Load ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.6
Data Measures................................................................................................................................ 10
3.7
Procedures ...................................................................................................................................... 12
3.7.1 Anthropometry ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.7.2 Range of Motion ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.7.3 Static Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 13
3.7.4 Bulk Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.7.5 March ........................................................................................................................................ 14
3.7.6 Dismounted Patrol..................................................................................................................... 14
3.7.7 Gunfighter Drills ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.7.8 MOUT Assault ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.7.9 Obstacle Course ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.7.10
Live Fire ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.7.11
Physical Discomfort .............................................................................................................. 23
3.7.12
Pouch Placement ................................................................................................................... 24
3.7.13
Overall Ratings ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.8
Statistical Plan................................................................................................................................ 24
4.
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1
Anthropometry ............................................................................................................................... 27
4.2
Range of Motion ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.3
Static Compatibility ....................................................................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Clothing, Vehicles, and Weapons Compatibility ....................................................................... 28
4.4
March ............................................................................................................................................. 29
4.5
Patrol .............................................................................................................................................. 30
4.6
Gunfighter Drills ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.7
MOUT Assault ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.8
Obstacle Course ............................................................................................................................. 32
4.9
Live Fire ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Page v
4.9.1 C7A2 Run Down Results............................................................................................................ 33
4.9.2 C9 Run Down Results ................................................................................................................ 34
4.9.3 Tactical Shooting Results .......................................................................................................... 35
4.10
Bulk Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 36
4.11
Physical Discomfort ....................................................................................................................... 38
4.12
Daily Exit Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 39
4.13
Features .......................................................................................................................................... 42
4.13.1
Common Features ................................................................................................................. 42
4.13.2
Specific Features ................................................................................................................... 43
4.14
Final Exit Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 44
4.15
Design Principles ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.15.1
Riflemen ................................................................................................................................ 47
4.15.2
Commander ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.15.3
C9 Gunner ............................................................................................................................. 47
4.15.4
M203 Gunner ........................................................................................................................ 48
4.16
Focus Group Discussion ................................................................................................................ 48
5.
Discussion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 50
5.1
Comparisons to SME Jury Results ................................................................................................. 52
5.2
Future Evaluation Recommendations ............................................................................................ 56
5.2.1 Generic Approach...................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.2 Test Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.3 Assessment Protocol .................................................................................................................. 57
5.2.4 Test Stands ................................................................................................................................. 57
5.2.5 Subjects ...................................................................................................................................... 59
6.
References.............................................................................................................................................. 60
Annex A: Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................ A-1
Questionnaire Type
Page......................................................................................................................... A-1
MFR Feature Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 1
MFR A1
A-3 .............................................................................................................................................. 1
MFR A2
A-4 .............................................................................................................................................. 1
MFR A3
A-5 .............................................................................................................................................. 1
MFR C
A-6 ................................................................................................................................................. 1
MFR F
A-7 ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Live Fire Questionnaire (Fr)
A-8 ............................................................................................................... 1
Post-task Questionnaire (Fr)
A-9 ............................................................................................................... 1
Physical Comfort Questionnaire (Fr)
A-10 ............................................................................................... 1
Thermal Comfort Questionnaire (Fr)
A-11 .............................................................................................. 1
MFR Summary/Daily Exit Questionnaire (Fr)
Trial Exit Questionnaire (Fr)
Page vi
A-12 ............................................................................... 1
A-14 ............................................................................................................ 1
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: MFR A1 ............................................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 2: MFR A2 ............................................................................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 3: MFR A3 ............................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 4: MFR C .............................................................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 5: MFR F ............................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 6: MFR F WITH CENTRAL ADAPTER ...................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 7: STANDARD RATING SCALE .............................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 8: MODIFIED WELLS AND DILLON SIT AND REACH TEST .................................................................... 13
FIGURE 9: DISMOUNTED PATROL ..................................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 10: GUNFIGHTER DRILLS ..................................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 11: MOUT ASSAULT ........................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 12: HILL CLIMB ................................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 13: TUNNEL AND ROPE CLIMB............................................................................................................. 17
FIGURE 14: LADDER CLIMB ............................................................................................................................. 17
FIGURE 15: LOW WIRE OBSTACLE ................................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 16: LOW LEOPARD CRAWL .................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 17: MONKEY BARS .............................................................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 18: OVER/UNDER OBSTACLE............................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 19: SHORT PIT OBSTACLE.................................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 20: BALANCE BEAM OBSTACLE .......................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 21: HIGH WALL OBSTACLE ................................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 22: LOW WALL OBSTACLES ................................................................................................................ 21
FIGURE 23: LIVE FIRE - RUNDOWNS ................................................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 24: LIVE FIRE – TACTICAL SHOOTING ................................................................................................. 23
FIGURE 25: DISCOMFORT LOCATIONS .............................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 26: CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE RESULTS................................................................................................. 37
FIGURE 27: WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE RESULTS ................................................................................................ 38
FIGURE 28: PHYSICAL DISCOMFORT LOCATIONS AND RATINGS ...................................................................... 39
FIGURE 29: TACTICAL VEST RATINGS COMPARISON........................................................................................ 53
FIGURE 30: MFR A1 RATINGS COMPARISON ................................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 33: MFR C RATINGS COMPARISON ..................................................................................................... 55
FIGURE 34: MFR F RATINGS COMPARISON...................................................................................................... 56
Page vii
List of Tables
TABLE 1: REQUIRED LOADS TO BE CARRIED BY PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................... 10
TABLE 2: LIVE FIVE RUN DOWN SEQUENCE OF EVENTS .................................................................................. 22
TABLE 3: STATISTICAL PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 4: ANTHROPOMETRY RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 27
TABLE 5: RANGE OF MOTION RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 27
TABLE 6: CLOTHING, VEHICLES, AND WEAPONS COMPATIBILITY ................................................................... 29
TABLE 7: MARCH RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 29
TABLE 8: PATROL RESULTS.............................................................................................................................. 30
TABLE 9: GUNFIGHTER DRILLS RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 10: FIBUA ASSAULT RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 32
TABLE 11: OBSTACLE COURSE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 33
TABLE 12: C7 LIVE FIRE RUNDOWNS .............................................................................................................. 34
TABLE 13: C9 LIVE FIRE RUNDOWNS .............................................................................................................. 35
TABLE 14: C7 LIVE FIRE – TACTICAL SHOOTING ............................................................................................. 36
TABLE 15: BULK ASSESSMENT RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 16: DAILY EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (1) ..................................................................................... 41
TABLE 17: DAILY EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (2) ..................................................................................... 42
TABLE 18: COMMON FEATURES ....................................................................................................................... 43
TABLE 19: A1 FEATURES ................................................................................................................................. 43
TABLE 20: A2 FEATURES ................................................................................................................................. 43
TABLE 21: A3 FEATURES ................................................................................................................................. 44
TABLE 22: C FEATURES ................................................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 23: F FEATURES .................................................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 24: FINAL EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ........................................................................................... 45
TABLE 25: MFR PROS AND CONS .................................................................................................................... 49
Page viii
1. Introduction
The Tactical Vest (TV) currently in use by the Canadian Forces (CF) was developed as part of the
Clothe the Soldier (CTS) project in June 1995 in order to provide load carriage capabilities for the
Army. In 1999, the Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) was written for the TV and the
equipment came into service in early 2002 following a series of controlled user trials and clinical
evaluations conducted at Queen’s University, Kingston.
The current TV was developed using technology from the 1990s and reflects the operational
requirements of that time (efficient and reliable logistical resupply, short duration engagements,
availability of alternative, modular in-service webbing, etc.). The CF is actively engaged in
dispersed, counter-insurgency operations overseas and is in need of a new TV to meet the demands
of prolonged operations with minimal logistical resupply. All members of the CF must be able to
perform missions and tasks optimally in a variety of adverse environments in order to protect
themselves and others during combat operations. As a result, the development of a new more
modular TV, with increased combat load capacity, is perceived as an immediate requirement for the
Land Force (LF).
Recent operational experience has generated many observations concerning the inadequacy of the
TV. The complaints have centered on the inability of the infantry soldier to configure pouches and
pockets to personalize the load configuration for assigned tasks/roles (e.g. C7 M-203 gunner, C9
gunner, etc.) and on the inability to have immediate access to munitions and ammunition.
Consequently, many soldiers currently being deployed to Afghanistan are acquiring non-issued
equipment over the service standard. This is potentially dangerous to the soldier as these non-issued
vests have not been tested to meet CF standards.
A focus group session with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) was held in July 2009 (Ste Croix et al,
2010) to identify possible solutions for a short term acquisition and evaluation. Thirty-four highly
experience soldiers representing LF units from across Canada participated. The jury included
sessions to help identify realistic loads to be carried, sessions to determine relative importance
between competing requirements, perform a baseline evaluation of the current issue TV, and then
systematically evaluate all of the candidate MFR systems, establishing pouch requirements,
identifying desirable pouch features, and refining the pouch suite. The primary reason cited as to
why the current tactical vest should be replaced is that it does not have the capacity to carry the
amount of ammunition and items that soldiers typically carry and that it is not fully configurable to
accommodate different job requirements and carry different items. Overall ratings of the MFR
systems evaluated identified MFRs A, C, and F as the highest ranking of the potential COTS
systems. During focus group discussion, more than 80% of SMEs indicated that MFRs A, C, or F
should be forwarded for army evaluation.
While the SME session helped identify three potential MFR solutions, the systems were not
evaluated operationally. Additionally, MFR system A came in three variants, A1, A2 and A3,
which further complicated the issue. These five systems were thus forwarded for limited pilot
evaluation.
Page 1
1.1
Abbreviations and Definitions
The following abbreviations are used throughout this report.
Abbreviation
Definition
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
CF
Canadian Forces
CFB
Canadian Forces Base
COTS
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
CTS
Clothe the Soldier
DRDC
Defence Research and Development Canada
FIBUA
Fighting in Built-up Areas
FPV
Fragmentation Protection Vest
GPS
Global Positioning System
HE
High Explosive
HF
Human Factors
LAV
Light Armoured Vehicle
LF
Land Forces
LMG
Light Machine Gun
MFR
Modular Fighting Rig
MMG
Medium Machine Gun
NBC
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical
PALS
Pocket/Pouch Attachment Ladder System
PRC
Portable Radio Communications
PRR
Personal Role Radio
R22R
Royal 22nd Regiment
Rds
Rounds
ROM
Range of Motion
SD
Standard Deviation
SME
Subject Matter Experts
SOR
Statement of Operational Requirements
SORD
Special Operations Research and Development
SRAAW
Short Range Anti-Armour weapon
TV
Tactical Vest
Page 2
2. Aim
The aim of this pilot trial was to provide a preliminary assessment of each of the Modular Fighting
Rig (MFR) candidates for usability, acceptability to soldiers, and for compatibility with a range of
soldier equipment and tasks. A second goal was to conduct a preliminary assessment and
characterization of the preferred placement of soldier load items. This pilot trial was also used to
evaluate and develop methods that may be used to evaluate the MFR in future formal evaluations.
Page 3
Page 4
3. Method
3.1
Overview
In conjunction with a Defence R&D Canada Soldier Integrated Helmet System Technology
Demonstration project (SIHS TD) trial, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) MFR systems were
assessed on a number of static and dynamic stands. The 10 day fit and evaluation trial was
conducted at Canadian Forces Bases (CFB) Valcartier from September 28 to October 9, 2009.
Although 26 participants passed through range of motion and field of view test stands (for a
concurrent trial), a subset of 14 soldiers were screened to participate in the MFR pilot trials (the
remaining participants (12) took part in the SIHS experiment). The participants were required to
undertake a battery of human factors tests while wearing each of five (5) COTS MFR systems in a
repeated measures counter-balanced design. Load was consistent across MFR conditions. Human
factors tests included assessments of fit, comfort, range of motion, performance of select battle
tasks, and equipment, vehicle, weapons, and clothing compatibility. Data collection included
anthropometric measurements, range of motion measurements, questionnaires, focus groups, live
fire performance measures, and Human Factors (HF) observer assessments. Methods are detailed in
subsequent sections.
3.2
Test Conditions
3.2.1
Modular Fighting Rigs
A total of five MFR systems were evaluated during the pilot trial. Three of the candidates (A1, A2,
and A3) were all part of a larger system that utilized interchangeable front and back panels. All five
systems are described in more detail below:
3.2.1.1 MFR A1
MFR A1 was developed by SORD Australia and utilizes their Classic System Vest with a Chest Rig
Back Mesh – see Figure 1. MFR A1 is a front opening vest held together with 3 side release
buckles, and the system can be adjusted at the shoulders. Pocket/Pouch Attachment Ladder System
(PALS) real estate is provided on the front and back of the system and the PALS webbing is
stitched overtop a mesh material.
Page 5
Figure 1: MFR A1
3.2.1.2 MFR A2
MFR A2 was developed by Special Operations Research and Development (SORD) Australia and
utilizes their Classic System Chest Rig with CPP Back – see Figure 2. MFR A2 is a side opening
vest, that can also be donned overhead, that encompasses a larger amount of PALS real estate on
the front of the vest. It is attached at the waist by a side release buckle on both sides.
Figure 2: MFR A2
3.2.1.3 MFR A3
MFR A3 was developed by SORD Australia and utilizes the Classic System DH Chest Rig with the
Chest Rig Back Mesh panel – see Figure 3. MFR A3 has a similar waist attachment system as MFR
Page 6
A2 but it lacks the front panel bib that MFR A2 provides, therefore decreasing the amount of PALS
real estate on the front.
Figure 3: MFR A3
3.2.1.4 MFR C
MFR C was developed by SORD Australia as their Chest Rig system – see Figure 4. MFR C is a
side opening vest with attachments at both sides of the vest with additional PALS webbing on the
shoulder straps. MFR C also has a bib, that is attached at the shoulders by a D-ring and snap, which
can be left up to provide additional PALS real estate on the front or it can folded down into a more
traditional chest rig design.
Figure 4: MFR C
Page 7
3.2.1.5 MFR F
MFR F is a 2-piece Modular Assault Vest designed by Tactical Tailor® – see Figure 5. MFR F is a
front opening vest that is attached using two side release buckles and has PALS real estate on the
front and back. The PALS real estate on front was increased by the addition of an add-on central
adapter that bridged the gap between the right and left panels – see Figure 6.
Figure 5: MFR F
Figure 6: MFR F with Central Adapter
3.3
Protocol
Participants were given an orientation briefing on the overall study, its objectives and test activities
prior to the onset of the trial. Questionnaire briefings explained the standard rating scale, the data
scoring method and rules of questionnaire completion. Following the orientation and prior to the
Page 8
start of any testing, the participants were provided with instruction on how to conduct each of the
tasks until soldiers become familiar with these tasks. The following list shows the tasks that the
soldiers completed over the course of the 10 days of testing. Based on the availability of resources
these tasks were not performed in this order but were conducted over the period of the 10 days.
1. Anthropometry
2. Range of Motion
3. Weapons Compatibility
4. Clothing/Equipment Compatibility
5. Static Vehicle Compatibility
6. March
7. Patrol
8. Gunfighter Drills
9. FIBUA Assault
10. Obstacle Course
11. Live Fire
a) Rundowns
b) Tactical Shooting
12. Physical Comfort
13. Overall Acceptance
Following the completion of each task, the participants were required to complete a Questionnaire
or provide a rating of acceptance for the current MFR condition. At the completion of the trial,
participants completed a series of Exit Questionnaires (Overall Exit, and Features) that compared
the performance of the MFR systems over the course of the 10 day trial, as well as, compared it to
the current in-service tactical vest. A focus group was held to further discuss their assessment.
3.4
Participants
A total of 14 participants were recruited from the LF, mostly from 3rd Battalion Royal 22nd
Regiment (R22R). The mean age of the participants was 23.2 years (SD=5.8, max=40, min=19).
The mean length of service in the regular forces for the participants was 23.6 months (SD=32.7,
max=108, min=7). Most (11) participants had no operational experience. The participants that did
have operational experience served tours in Afghanistan and Bosnia. All of the participants used the
current in-service tactical vest as their primary load bearing vest. Infantry roles (rifleman,
commander, C9 gunner, M203 gunner) were divided amongst the participants. The participants
were tasked to take on their specific role for the duration of the trial and carry the appropriate load
for their specific role as dictated in Section 3.5. Of the 14 participants, four assumed the role of a
rifleman, four were equipped as M203 gunners, three were equipped as commanders, and three
were equipped as C9 gunners.
Page 9
3.5
Soldiers Load
In current operations, soldiers are carrying much more ammunition than the current in-service
tactical vest can hold. Therefore, in order to perform a detailed examination of the capabilities of
the potential MFR systems a standard soldiers load, that was to be carried on the soldiers vest, had
to be quantified. The MFR should be selected by the CF based on the requirements of today and
potential future conflicts. A focus group was conducted from 14 – 16 July 2009 with a group of 34
soldiers from across Canada, with over 100 operational tours between them, to determine the loads
for a rifleman, commander, C9 gunner, and M203 gunner. The following table displays the loads
that were the result of the focus group and the requirement for the soldiers in this trial to carry on
their vest. The soldiers in this trial were not given any instruction as to how this load was to be
carried only that it must all fit on the MFR. The participants were provided with several types of
pouches to carry the expected load.
Table 1: Required Loads to be carried by Participants
30 rd 5.56mm magazine
20 rd 7.62mm magazine
13 rd pistol magazine
200 rd 5.56 mm link
100 rd 5.56 mm linked
12 gauge shotgun shells
High Explosive (HE) hand grenade
Smoke grenade
Distraction device
40mm HE grenade
40mm pyrotechnic grenade
Trauma kit
Tourniquet
Global Positioning System (GPS)
Compass
Strobe
Personal Role Radio
PRC 152
Small utility pouch (misc. gear)
Medium utility pouch (misc. gear)
Large utility pouch (misc. gear)
3.6
Rifleman
8-12
Grenadier
6-10
C9 Gunner (600-800 rds 5.56 link)
Commander
8-12
2-4
2-4
2
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
2-4
1-2
1-2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1-2
1-2
1-2
8-20
4-6
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Data Measures
Anthropometry: Participants were measured for various anthropometric measurements. The
measurements were used to confirm proper assignment of MFR size. The measurements were also
used to validate that this study had a wide range of participants based on anthropometrics in an
effort to alleviate bias due to size.
Range of Motion: Several ranges of motion were taken for each MFR condition. This data were
used to identify any deficiencies in range of motion caused by any of the MFR conditions.
Page 10
Circumference: Chest and waist circumferences were taken of each participant while they wore
each of the MFR conditions with a designated fighting order. These data were used to identify if
any of the MFR conditions significantly increased the size of the participant.
Questionnaires: Participants completed a number of questionnaires that were intended to reveal
their perceptions about the MFR designs.
Participants were asked to complete a task questionnaire following the conclusion of each of the
following tasks: march, patrol, gunfighter drills, urban assault, and obstacle course. Using the same
7-point scale of acceptability, participants rated each MFR system over a range of issues.
At the end of each day participants completed a daily exit questionnaire that covered a more
detailed range of issues than each task questionnaire. Using the same 7-point scale of acceptability,
participants rated each MFR system over the entire day’s worth of activities.
Participants were also asked to complete the live fire questionnaire. Using a 7-point scale (Figure
7), where 1 was completely unacceptable, 4 was borderline, and 7 completely acceptable;
participants rated the acceptability of a number of criteria important to the conduct of the live fire
exercise.
Furthermore, participants were asked to complete a physical discomfort questionnaire at the
conclusion of the each day. Finally, using a 5-point physical discomfort scale, where 1 was neutral,
3 was noticeable discomfort and 5 was extreme pain, participants rated physical discomfort of the
MFR systems.
At the conclusion of the trial participants completed an exit questionnaire that compared all of the
MFR systems and the current in-service tactical vest over a range of issues using the same 7-point
scale of acceptance. Using the 7-point scale of acceptance participants also completed a Features
questionnaire for each of the MFR system which evaluated the acceptance of certain features unique
to the individual MFR system.
Participants also provided ratings of acceptance to the HF observers, using the 7-point scale of
acceptance, for a number of different compatibility areas including weapons, clothing, equipment,
and vehicles.
All questionnaires were completed by each participant for each of the MFR systems that they
assessed. The comparison of the results of these questionnaires was used in the analyses.
Focus Group: Following the completion of the trial participants took part in a guided focus group.
They discussed different issues of MFR design and acceptability in an effort to collect information
that can be used in the further down selection of MFR systems.
Page 11
Figure 7: Standard Rating Scale
3.7
Procedures
3.7.1
Anthropometry
Anthropometric measurements were taken from each soldier prior to the start of the trial. There
were a total of four anthropometric measurements taken for each soldier. Measurements were taken
using an anthropometer or by using a tape measure. A detailed description of how the
measurements were taken is presented below:
•
Stature- The vertical distance from a standing surface to the top of the head was measured
with an anthropometer. The subject stood erect with the head in the Frankfort plane. The
heels were together with the weight distributed equally on both feet. The shoulders and
upper extremities were relaxed.
•
Chest Circumference- The maximum horizontal circumference of the chest at the fullest
part of the breast was measured with a tape. The subject stood erect looking straight ahead.
The shoulders and upper extremities were relaxed. The measurement was taken at the
maximum point of quiet respiration.
•
Waist Circumference- The horizontal circumference of the waist at the level of the center
of the navel (omphalion) was measured with a tape. The subject stood erect looking straight
ahead. The heels were together with the weight distributed equally on both feet. The
measurement was made at the maximum point of quiet respiration.
•
Back Length- The surface distance between the cervicale landmark at the back of the neck
and the posterior waist (omphalion) landmark at the level of the navel was measured with a
tape. The subject stood erect with the head in the Frankfort plane. The shoulders and upper
extremities were relaxed. The measurement was taken at the maximum point of quiet
respiration.
3.7.2
Range of Motion
Range of motion measurements were taken while the participants wore each of the MFR systems.
Measurements were taken using a combination of a goniometer, Wells and Dillon Sit and Reach
apparatus and a digital level. The following ranges of motion were measured:
•
Page 12
Trunk Forward Flexion (Modified Wells and Dillon Sit and Reach) – see Figure 8.
o
The subject sits with legs fully extended with the soles of the feet placed flat
against the horizontal crossboard of the apparatus.
o
Both inner edges of the feet should be placed 2 cm from the scale.
o
Keeping the knees fully extended, arms evenly stretched, palms down, the subject
bends and reaches forward pushing the sliding marker along the scale with their
fingertips as forward as possible.
o
The position should be held for approximately 2 seconds
Figure 8: Modified Wells and Dillon Sit and Reach Test
•
Trunk Lateral Flexion (Standing)
o
o
•
Instruct the participant to bend the trunk to the side as far as possible and record the
inclinometer angle.
Arm Horizontal Plane Adduction
o
Place the participant’s dominant shoulder in 30° of flexion.
o
Have the forearm rotated into the mid-position between supination and pronation.
o
o
o
3.7.3
Place a single inclinometer at the mid level of the thoracic vertebra.
Have the participant flex their elbow to approximately 90° of flexion.
Have the inclinometer near the elbow and ensure that the reading is 0°.
Ask the participant to adduct their arm in front of their body and record the
inclinometer angle.
Static Compatibility
3.7.3.1 Clothing/Weapons Compatibility
Compatibility with clothing and weapons was evaluated at numerous static test stands over the
course of the 10 day trial. Participants were instructed to perform clothing use and weapons
handling drills and HF observers collected participant ratings on compatibility. Participants were
encouraged to adapt the MFR system to the best of their ability to accommodate the test clothing,
and weapons prior to each test. Participants were evaluated under the supervision of an HF
observer.
The static compatibility test stands comprised the following pieces of equipment:
Clothing:
Combat and Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) gloves
Page 13
Weapons:
C7A2, C9A1 LMG, C6 MMG, M72 SRAAW, M203 Grenade Launcher
(standing, kneeling, and prone), Pistol, and Carl Gustav
Participants were required to rate the compatibility of each of the MFR systems with each of the
selected weapons, and clothing at each test stand. HF observers measured clothing and equipment
stand-off and noted instances of compatibility clash and difficulty.
3.7.3.2 Vehicle Compatibility
Test conditions were evaluated for compatibility with the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) III.
Participants were divided into smaller groups to perform the required drills. Specific evaluations
included:
a) Access/Egress: Participants were required to rate the ease of access and egress of vehicle
hatches and doors. HF observers evaluated soldiers entering and exiting vehicles for any
postural, range of movement, and vehicle obstruction effects.
b) Vehicle Operation: Participants were required to rate the estimated ease of driving the
vehicle in each condition. HF observers evaluated participants during vehicle operation for
any postural, range of movement, and crew station obstruction.
c) Air Sentry and Observer Tasks: Participants were required to rate the estimated ease of
performing air sentry tasks in the LAV III. HF observers evaluated participants during air
sentry and observer tasks for any postural or range of movement obstructions.
Participants were required to rate the compatibility of the test conditions noting restrictions on
movements with the assigned vehicle. HF observers noted instances where certain tasks could not
be performed due to the effects of the MFR system.
3.7.4
Bulk Assessment
Each participant’s chest and waist circumference were measured while they wore each MFR
condition with full fighting order. These measurements were taken using a soft tape measure and
the results were compared against the MFR systems to identify if any conditions produced
significantly more bulk at the chest and waist. The chest and waist measurements were taken at the
largest point of the chest and waist. In an effort to quantify how much additional bulk the MFRs
created, a subset of participants were also measured in the fragmentation vest only condition.
3.7.5
March
Participants were required to participate in a limited forced march (approximately 3 km).
Participants were required to carry a loaded rucksack that varied in weight from 12.3 kg to 22.7 kg
with a mean weight of 18.2 kg (SD=3.01 kg). The participants were required to wear the Gen III
fragmentation vest with full fighting order and carry their ballistic plates in their rucksack. At the
conclusion of the march participants completed a task questionnaire.
3.7.6
Dismounted Patrol
Participants completed a dismounted patrol ambush where an enemy force was sent ahead of the
patrol and hid in the nearby trees. The enemy force would fire blank ammunition at the participants
when they were near. Participants performed standard skirmishing fire, and assault the enemy
position drills until the commander thought it was safe to proceed with the patrol. The enemy forces
would continue to proceed ahead of the patrol and provided approximately three ambushes during
each patrol. At the conclusion of the dismounted patrol participants completed a task questionnaire.
Page 14
Figure 9: Dismounted Patrol
3.7.7
Gunfighter Drills
Compatibility of the MFRs with the C7A2 was assessed during tactical shooting drills. Participants
performed a number of drills from the Canadian Army Gunfighter Program. The drills included
90°, 180° pivots, emergency reloads, stoppage drills (rap, rack, and go), and covering drills using
each of the MFR systems. At the conclusion of the gunfighter drills participants completed a task
questionnaire.
Figure 10: Gunfighter Drills
3.7.8
MOUT Assault
A limited Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) assault exercise was conducted.
Participants completed room clearing procedures as a section to evaluate the effectiveness of the
MFR systems in MOUT scenarios. At the conclusion of the MOUT assault participants completed a
task questionnaire.
Page 15
Figure 11: MOUT Assault
3.7.9
Obstacle Course
The following obstacles were undertaken consecutively as part of a single course (see Figure 12
through Figure 22). Participants completed the obstacle course while wearing each of the MFR
systems without their fragmentation plates. Once participants completed the obstacle course they
completed a subjective rating questionnaire that evaluated the performance of the various
conditions.
•
Hill Climb: Subjects were instructed to ascend and descend a large mound of dirt;
Figure 12: Hill Climb
•
Page 16
Tunnel and Rope Climb: Participants were required to run through a tunnel and ascend a
rope ladder at the end;
Figure 13: Tunnel and Rope Climb
•
Ladder Climb: Participants had to ascend a metal ladder and touch the top and then
descend down the same side;
Figure 14: Ladder Climb
•
Low Wire Obstacle: Participants had to hop over a series of low wires that were
approximately 0.6m high;
Page 17
Figure 15: Low Wire Obstacle
•
Crawl Obstacle: Participants were required to perform a leopard crawl in sand while
traversing under a net obstacle;
Figure 16: Low Leopard Crawl
•
Page 18
Monkey Bars: Participants were required to traverse a series of monkey bars using any
method they wanted;
Figure 17: Monkey Bars
•
Over Under Obstacle: Climb over and crawl under three successive metal bars
mounted 0.5 and 1.0 meter from the ground;
Figure 18: Over/Under Obstacle
•
Short Pit Obstacle: Run up a 2m ramp and jump down into a sand pit;
Page 19
Figure 19: Short Pit Obstacle
•
Balance Beam Obstacle: Walk along a balance beam;
Figure 20: Balance Beam Obstacle
•
High Wall Obstacle: Participants had to ascend a 6 ft. wall and drop down on the other
side.
Figure 21: High Wall Obstacle
•
Page 20
Low Wall Obstacle: Participants had to climb a series of low walls.
Figure 22: Low Wall Obstacles
3.7.10 Live Fire
All participants completed a number of live fire exercises to evaluate the compatibility of the
different MFR systems while shooting live ammunition. The live fire exercises were broken down
into two separate phases; run downs and tactical shooting.
3.7.10.1 Run Downs
During the run down exercise participants began in the prone condition, 300 m from the target. The
following table outlines the series of events during the live fire rundown task – see Table 2.
Participants began with a total of 34 rounds in 2 separate magazines (28 in first, 6 in second). In all
cases there were 2 figure 11 targets exposed, except for the 100m engagement while standing where
only a single figure 11 target was exposed.
Figure 23: Live Fire - Rundowns
Page 21
Table 2: Live Five Run Down Sequence of Events
Range
(m)
300
Rounds
200
8
200
200
4
200
200
4
200
8
100
100
4
100
100
4
100
100
Instruction
Prep stage –firer in prone
position with 2 magazines with
28 rd magazine loaded, observe
target area
At the 200m engages each
target with 4 rds from prone
position
With a 28 magazine, load. When
the target appears the shooter
moves to the 200m firing point.
Watch and shoot.
When the shooter reaches the
200m firing point adopts the prone
position and engages each target
with 4 rds each
Subject adopts the standing alert
position
When the target appears the
shooter adopts the kneeling
with 2 rds each
position
shooter adopts the prone position
and engages each target with 2 rds
each
Subject remains in the prone
position
shooter moves to the 100m firing
point and adopts the kneeling
position. Watch and shoot.
Shooter engages each target with 4
rds each
Upon completion, shooter
stands
At the 200m engage target in
kneeling
stands
prone
remains prone
Rundown from 200m to 100m
200
100
Description
2
Engage target in kneeling
position
stands.
kneeling
Change magazine
kneeling
stands.
standing
position
with 2 rds each
With an 8 rd magazine reload
with 2 rds each
position
shooter engages the left target in
the standing position with 2 rds
Position
Scoring
Prone
1 pt per hit
45 sec
exposure
Kneeling
1 pt per hit
5 sec
exposure
Prone
1 pt per hit
5 sec
exposure
Kneeling
1 pt per hit
45 sec
exposure
Standing
Kneeling
Kneeling
Kneeling
Standing
Standing
1 pt per hit
5 sec
exposure
Not timed
1 pt per hit
5 sec
exposure
1 pt per hit
5 sec
exposure
3.7.10.2 Tactical Shooting
Participants completed a number of tactical shooting evaluations from a number of different
distances (5 – 50 metres) as per the direction of the instructor. Participants were required to
complete a series of firing tasks including controlled pair firing, Mozambique drills (2 shots to the
Page 22
body, 1 shot to the head), 90° pivots from the left and the right, 180° pivots with a forward move,
and speed reload drills. Participants fired a total of 32 rounds during this exercise.
Figure 24: Live Fire – Tactical Shooting
3.7.11 Physical Discomfort
At the conclusion of each day participants were required to complete a physical discomfort
questionnaire. This questionnaire was comprised of drawings of the front, and back of the torso,
head, and hips. Participants were required to indicate the location and rate the extent of physical
discomfort using the five point rating scale provided. Discomfort could include, but was not limited
to, contact irritation or pressure points. HF staff investigated any reports of physical discomfort
through photographs and interviews with affected participants.
Using a standard five-point rating scale of discomfort, where 1 was neutral, 3 was noticeable
discomfort and 5 was extreme pain, participants rated the acceptability of physical comfort by
location – see Figure 25.
Page 23
Figure 25: Discomfort Locations
3.7.12 Pouch Placement
Participants were not given direction as to the location of their pouches with respect to their MFR
for the duration of the trial. Participants had the ability to alter the location of their pouches
throughout the trial with the intention of finding an optimal location of the pouches by the end of
the trial. At the end of the trial participants that shared the same role for the trial gathered together
to come up with an optimal location of the pouches for their specific role for each of the MFR
systems. The results are presented in the section 4.15.
3.7.13 Overall Ratings
At the conclusion of each day participants were required to rate their overall acceptance of each of
the MFR systems, as well as, complete a daily exit questionnaire that covered a wide range of
issues.
3.8
Statistical Plan
The quantitative (both objective and subjective) results of this evaluation were analyzed using
parametric Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) methods. Differences were identified at p<0.05. The
statistical plan was as follows:
Table 3: Statistical Plan
Data Source
Circumference
Range Of Motion
Daily Exit Questionnaire
Patrol Task Questionnaire
FIBUA Task Questionnaire
Obstacle Course Task
Questionnaire
March Task Questionnaire
Gunfighter Drills Task
Questionnaire
C9 Live Fire
Live Fire (Rundowns)
Live Fire (Tactical Shooting)
Final Exit Questionnaire
Data Type
Waist and Chest Circumference
Measurements
ROM Measurement
Subjective assessment by
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
participant
Analysis Type
ANOVA for repeated measures:
- ROM2
- ROM4
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria1
- Criteria12
Note 1: Variation in sample size as some participants were not able to complete all conditions
Page 24
Note 2: Missing data points from questionnaires are due to the lack of experience from some participants to answer a
question accurately or from participants forgetting to answer a question.
Note 3: Missing data points were replaced by the group mean for statistical purposes (if there were 2 or fewer data points
missing).
Note 4: In each case there were a total of 5 MFR conditions.
Page 25
Page 26
4. Results
4.1
Anthropometry
During the trial anthropometric data were collected for each participant. The anthropometric data
collected were stature, chest circumference, waist circumference, and back length. Anthropometric
data are shown in Table 4.
Comparing the test participants to the 1997 Land Forces (LF) anthropometric survey (Chamberland,
Carrier, Forest, and Hachez, 1997), participants represented a large range of the LF in terms of
stature and back length. In terms of chest and waist circumference participants generally were
smaller than those represented in the 1997 LF anthropometric survey. Overall, participants
represented a wide range of the soldier population in the CF.
Table 4: Anthropometry Results
n=14
Stature
Chest Circumference
Waist Circumference
Back Length
4.2
Average
SD
Min
(1997 Survey %ile)
Max
(1997 Survey %ile)
173.0
96.8
85.4
44.8
8.49
5.56
5.38
3.29
161.9 (1%ile)
86.5 (2%ile)
76.0 (3%ile)
39.0 (<1%ile)
184.7 (90%ile)
106.5 (70%ile)
95.0 (65%ile)
50.0 (85%ile)
Range of Motion
Range of Motion (ROM) measurements were collected for all participants in each of the MFR
conditions –see Table 5 for mean results (standard deviation in parentheses). Forward flexion in the
MFRs (as measured by the Wells and Dillon Sit and Reach Test) ranged from 22.1 cm with MFR
systems A2 and F to 24.1 cm with MFR A1, where larger measures indicate greater forward
flexion. Lateral flexion results to the right ranged from 36.0° with A3 to 38.3° with F while lateral
flexion results to the left ranged from 34.3° with C to 37.4°with A1. Participants were able to
laterally flex their waist slightly more to the right compared to the left. The ability of participants to
adduct their shoulder ranged from 24.2° with A3 to 29.5° with F. MFR A1 had the highest ROM
measures for forward flexion and lateral flexion to the left while MFR F had the highest ROM
measures for lateral flexion to the right and arm adduction.
Table 5: Range of Motion Results
n=14
Forward Flexion (cm)
Lateral Flexion (right) (°)
Lateral Flexion (left) (°)
Arm Adduction (°)
A1
24.1 (7.57)
36.9 (7.29)
37.4 (7.35)
27.4 (4.86)
A2
22.1 (6.02)
36.5 (8.67)
34.5 (7.85)
27.1 (8.55)
A3
23.2 (6.57)
36.0 (7.96)
34.6 (7.80)
24.2 (6.26)
C
22.9 (7.00)
36.2 (6.01)
34.3 (5.65)
26.9 (9.20)
F
22.1 (6.53)
38.3 (7.88)
35.9 (7.67)
29.5 (7.45)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the ROM data measurements to identify
differences between conditions. Of the four ROM measurements, there were no significant
Page 27
differences between any of the conditions for any of the measures with p-values being 0.455, 0.805,
0.411, 0.385 for forward flexion, lateral flexion to the right and left, and arm adduction
respectively. None of the MFRs limited waist or hip movement more than another.
4.3
Static Compatibility
Participants assessed the compatibility of the MFRs on several static test stands. A wide range of
clothing, vehicles, and weapons (see Table 6) were examined. Mean unacceptable ratings are
highlighted with shading. It should be noted that compatibility of the MFRs with the C7A2 was
assessed in the Gunfighter drill.
4.3.1
Clothing, Vehicles, and Weapons Compatibility
Participants evaluated the compatibility of the MFR systems with the in-service combat gloves and
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) gloves. Compatibility of the MFR systems with combat
gloves ranged from ‘borderline’ to ‘completely acceptable’ with the lowest rated MFR being A3
with a rating of 4.5 compared to the highest rated MFR which was A1, with a rating of 6.4. With
respect to the NBC gloves, ratings again ranged from ‘borderline’ to ‘completely acceptable’ with
the lowest rated MFR being A2 with a rating of 4.6 compared to the highest rated MFR which was
A1, with a rating of 6.4. Overall, all MFRs were found to be compatible with combat and NBC
gloves.
Participants evaluated the compatibility of the MFR systems with in-service infantry weapons.
There were very minor differences between the conditions with respect to compatibility with the
pistol with all conditions having an acceptability rating above ‘reasonably acceptable’, with MFR
A1 and A2 having the highest ratings. Compatibility with operating the C6 in the prone position had
slightly lower ratings than the pistol but all ratings were found to be above ‘borderline’ with MFR F
having the highest rating of ‘reasonably acceptable’. Compatibility with the M72 was also found to
be acceptable across all of the MFR systems with all of the systems having ratings above ‘barely
acceptable’ and MFR A1 having the highest rating of 6.6. Participants also rated the compatibility
of the MFR systems with the operation of the Carl Gustav providing one rating for both positions.
All ratings for operation of the Carl Gustav were between ‘reasonably acceptable’ and ‘completely
acceptable’ with the highest rated MFR being F with a rating of 6.5.
A total of six participants evaluated the compatibility of the M203 during live fire exercises in three
firing positions (standing, kneeling, prone). During the standing test, MFR F was found to be
unacceptable with a rating that was below ‘borderline’ while all other MFRs had ratings between
‘borderline’ and ‘completely acceptable’ with MFR A2 having the highest rating with a value of
6.7. All MFR systems were found to have acceptable ratings for the operation of the M203 in both
the kneeling and prone positions with participants preferring all MFR systems in the kneeling
position over the prone position. In both the kneeling and prone conditions MFR A1 had the highest
ratings while MFR F had the lowest rating during kneeling and MFR A3 having the lowest rating
while in the prone.
Participants also evaluated the compatibility of the MFR systems with the air sentry position of the
LAV III and during a vehicle egress exercise with the LAV III. In each of these cases participants
also completed the activities with the in-service tactical vest as an additional condition. In terms of
compatibility with the air sentry position all participants rated all MFRs as acceptable with the
current tactical vest having the highest rating of 6.2 followed by MFR A1 with a rating of 5.9 while
MFR A3 had the lowest rating of 5.3. In terms of vehicle egress, again the current tactical vest had
the highest rating of 6.2 followed by MFR A1 with a rating of 6.1 while MFR A2 and C had the
Page 28
lowest ratings of 5.1. For both of the vehicle compatibility criteria all MFRs had a mean rating that
was acceptable.
Table 6: Clothing, Vehicles, and Weapons Compatibility
n=14
Combat Gloves
NBC Gloves
Pistol
C6
M72
Carl G
M203-standing
M203-kneeling
M203-prone
Air Sentry
Vehicle Egress
4.4
A1
6.4 (0.85)
6.4 (0.84)
6.4 (0.94)
5.9 (1.46)
6.6 (0.85)
6.3 (1.27)
5.7 (1.37)
6.2 (0.89)
5.3 (1.86)
5.9 (1.10)
6.1 (0.47)
A2
4.9 (1.69)
4.6 (1.74)
6.4 (1.34)
5.1 (1.83)
6.4 (0.74)
6.2 (1.19)
6.7 (0.52)
6.0 (0.89)
4.7 (1.63)
5.7 (0.82)
5.1 (0.95)
A3
4.5 (1.22)
4.8 (1.29)
6.0 (1.18)
4.5 (1.74)
5.7 (1.14)
6.0 (1.24)
4.3 (1.75)
6.0 (0.89)
4.0 (1.26)
5.5 (1.29)
5.5 (0.94)
C
5.0 (1.11)
4.8 (1.12)
6.3 (0.99)
5.2 (1.58)
6.3 (0.91)
6.5 (0.93)
5.3 (0.82)
5.8 (1.17)
4.3 (1.37)
5.7 (1.38)
5.1 (1.51)
F
5.7 (1.07)
5.2 (1.56)
6.2 (1.19)
6.2 (0.77)
5.8 (1.48)
6.2 (1.23)
3.7 (2.34)
5.3 (1.37)
4.5 (1.38)
5.6 (1.55)
4.4 (1.45)
TV
6.2 (0.70)
6.2 (0.80)
March
After participants completed the 3 km march they completed a task questionnaire that evaluated the
MFR systems over a wide range of criteria – see Table 7. All of the ratings for MFR A1 were found
to be acceptable with all ratings above ‘barely acceptable’. MFR A1 had the highest ratings for all
criteria when compared to the other MFR systems. Similarly to MFR A1, MFR A2 had ratings that
were all found to be acceptable with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely
acceptable’. Only 4 of the criteria for MFR A3 were found to be acceptable (stability, ease of
movement, durability, and overall) while all of the other criteria were found to be unacceptable with
an average rating below ‘borderline’. The majority of the ratings for MFR C were found to be
acceptable, with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR C
was found to be unacceptable for thermal comfort with a mean rating of 3.5. Similarly, the majority
of the ratings for MFR F were found to be acceptable, with the majority of the ratings between
‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR F was found to be unacceptable for physical and thermal
comfort with ratings that were slightly below ‘borderline’.
Table 7: March Results
n=14
Adjustment
Stability
Ease of Movement
Ease of Use
Load Distribution
Durability
Compatibility
Physical Comfort
Thermal Comfort
Overall Rating
A1
6.1 (1.14)
6.4 (0.63)
5.9 (1.14)
6.1 (1.00)
5.9 (0.86)
6.5 (0.65)
6.1 (1.56)
5.9 (1.35)
5.6 (1.16)
5.9 (0.83)
A2
4.7 (1.54)
5.4 (1.65)
4.9 (2.02)
4.5 (1.99)
4.6 (1.91)
5.3 (0.97)
5.0 (1.66)
4.4 (1.50)
4.1 (2.11)
4.9 (1.23)
A3
3.9 (1.77)
4.5 (1.34)
4.1 (1.38)
3.8 (1.46)
3.8 (1.58)
5.1 (1.00)
3.9 (1.38)
3.9 (1.73)
3.9 (1.86)
4.2 (1.25)
C
4.4 (1.15)
5.0 (1.66)
4.5 (1.15)
4.6 (1.15)
4.3 (1.89)
5.2 (0.86)
4.2 (1.66)
4.0 (2.04)
3.5 (1.74)
4.5 (1.15)
F
4.3 (0.91)
4.8 (1.12)
4.5 (1.69)
4.0 (1.24)
4.3 (1.05)
5.3 (1.47)
4.3 (1.25)
3.8 (1.47)
3.8 (1.97)
4.2 (1.37)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the overall rating of the march and significant
differences were identified (F(4,52)=6.5463, p-value=<0.001). A Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis
revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than A3 (p-value=0.000655), C (pHumansystems® Incorporated
Page 29
value=0.006447), and F (p-value=0.000746). Overall, MFR A1 was the preferred MFR system for
the march task.
4.5
Patrol
After participants completed the patrol and ambush they completed a task questionnaire that evaluated
the MFR systems over a wide range of criteria – see Table 8. All of the ratings for MFR A1 were
found to be acceptable with the majority of the ratings between ‘barely acceptable’ and ‘reasonably
acceptable’. MFR A1 had the highest ratings for all of the criteria when compared to the other MFR
systems. Similarly, MFR A2, MFR A3, and MFR C had ratings that were all found to be acceptable
with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. The majority of the
ratings for MFR F were found to be acceptable, with the ratings just above ‘borderline’. However,
MFR F was found to be unacceptable for a number of criteria including compatibility, physical and
thermal comfort, and overall rating with ratings that were slightly below ‘borderline’.
Table 8: Patrol Results
n=14
Adjustment
Stability
Ease of Movement
Ease of Use
Load Distribution
Durability
Compatibility
Physical Comfort
Thermal Comfort
Overall Rating
A1
5.6 (1.16)
5.8 (1.37)
5.9 (1.29)
5.9 (0.95)
5.9 (1.38)
6.2 (0.80)
6.0 (0.88)
5.4 (1.55)
5.6 (1.28)
5.6 (1.01)
A2
4.4 (1.74)
4.4 (1.74)
4.3 (1.77)
4.2 (1.81)
4.0 (1.47)
5.1 (1.73)
4.2 (2.01)
4.1 (1.77)
4.2 (2.01)
4.2 (1.63)
A3
4.7 (1.42)
4.8 (1.23)
4.2 (1.66)
4.3 (1.48)
4.5 (1.49)
5.0 (0.96)
4.4 (1.21)
4.2 (1.79)
4.2 (1.75)
4.4 (1.38)
C
4.9 (0.92)
4.9 (1.00)
4.5 (1.28)
4.5 (1.22)
4.5 (1.27)
5.2 (1.35)
4.4 (1.08)
4.5 (1.22)
4.5 (1.74)
4.7 (1.07)
F
4.4 (1.69)
4.4 (1.69)
4.1 (2.03)
4.1 (1.90)
4.1 (1.64)
4.4 (1.83)
3.9 (1.59)
3.5 (1.83)
3.8 (2.08)
3.9 (1.77)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the overall rating of the patrol and significant
differences were identified (F(4,52)=4.9194, p-value=0.00193). A Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis
revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than A2 (p-value=0.010737), A3 (pvalue=0.039010), and F (p-value=0.001467). Overall, MFR A1 was the preferred MFR system for the
patrol.
4.6
Gunfighter Drills
The participants assessed the compatibility of the MFRs with the C7A2 and tactical shooting during
the gunfighter drill. After participants completed the blank fire gunfighter drills they completed a
task questionnaire that evaluated the MFR systems over a wide range of criteria – see Table 9. All
of the ratings for MFR A1 were found to be acceptable with all ratings above ‘barely acceptable’.
MFR A1 had the highest ratings for all of the criteria when compared to the other MFR systems. All
but one of the ratings for MFR A2 was found to be acceptable with the majority of the ratings
between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. The load distribution of MFR A2 for this task was
found to be below ‘borderline’ with a rating of 3.8. Four of the criteria for MFR A3 were found to
be unacceptable (ease of movement, ease of use, load distribution, and compatibility) while all of
the other criteria were found to be acceptable with an average rating between ‘borderline’ and
‘barely acceptable. The majority of the ratings for MFR C were found to be acceptable, with the
majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR C was found to be
unacceptable for ease of use with a mean rating of 3.8. Only 4 of the criteria for MFR F were found
Page 30
to be acceptable (stability, load distribution, durability, and overall) while all of the other criteria
were found to be unacceptable with an average rating that was just below ‘borderline’.
Table 9: Gunfighter Drills Results
n=14
Adjustment
Stability
Ease of Movement
Ease of Use
Load Distribution
Durability
Compatibility
Physical Comfort
Thermal Comfort
Overall Rating
A1
5.5 (1.50)
5.9 (1.04)
5.3 (1.75)
5.4 (1.44)
5.7 (1.03)
5.9 (0.86)
5.5 (1.32)
5.2 (1.72)
5.4 (1.26)
5.5 (1.04)
A2
4.4 (1.61)
4.6 (1.55)
4.4 (1.75)
4.2 (1.82)
3.8 (1.86)
4.6 (1.38)
4.3 (1.93)
4.0 (1.68)
4.1 (1.80)
4.0 (1.35)
A3
4.2 (1.34)
4.5 (1.31)
3.9 (1.11)
3.8 (1.57)
3.9 (1.55)
4.5 (1.38)
3.7 (1.42)
4.1 (1.38)
4.1 (1.44)
4.1 (1.32)
C
4.7 (1.11)
5.2 (1.14)
4.2 (1.57)
3.8 (1.46)
4.4 (1.43)
5.3 (0.92)
4.3 (1.42)
4.3 (1.43)
4.1 (1.75)
4.7 (0.94)
F
3.9 (1.85)
4.2 (1.64)
3.7 (1.49)
3.9 (2.06)
4.0 (1.63)
4.3 (1.60)
3.9 (1.75)
3.7 (1.65)
3.9 (2.22)
4.2 (1.34)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the overall rating of the gunfighter drills and
significant differences were identified (F(4,48)=4.7254, p-value=0.00269). A Tukey's HSD post hoc
analysis revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than A2 (p-value=0.004977), A3
(p-value=0.009376), and F (p=value=0.015654). Overall, MFR A1 was the preferred MFR system
for the gunfighter drills.
4.7
MOUT Assault
After participants completed the MOUT assault they completed a task questionnaire that evaluated
found to be acceptable with all ratings above ‘barely acceptable’. MFR A1 had the highest ratings
for all of the criteria when compared to the other MFR systems. Similarly to MFR A1, MFR A2 had
ratings that were all found to be acceptable with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and
‘barely acceptable’. Four of the criteria for MFR A3 were found to be unacceptable (ease of
movement, ease of use, load distribution, and physical comfort) while all of the other criteria were
found to be acceptable with an average rating between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. The
majority of the ratings for MFR C were found to be acceptable, with the majority of the ratings
between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. Similarly, the majority of the ratings for MFR F were
found to be acceptable, with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely
acceptable’. MFR F was found to be unacceptable for load distribution, and physical and thermal
comfort with ratings that were slightly below ‘borderline’.
Page 31
Table 10: FIBUA Assault Results
n=14
Adjustment
Stability
Ease of Movement
Ease of Use
Load Distribution
Durability
Compatibility
Physical Comfort
Thermal Comfort
Overall Rating
A1
5.6 (1.27)
6.1 (0.73)
5.7 (1.26)
5.6 (1.27)
5.8 (1.10)
6.4 (0.74)
5.5 (1.39)
5.6 (1.55)
5.5 (1.28)
5.6 (0.92)
A2
4.6 (1.98)
4.7 (1.68)
4.2 (1.85)
4.3 (1.77)
4.2 (1.67)
5.1 (1.38)
4.1 (1.88)
4.1 (2.06)
4.4 (1.91)
4.4 (1.64)
A3
4.4 (1.54)
4.3 (1.26)
3.9 (1.38)
3.8 (1.35)
3.9 (1.44)
4.5 (1.43)
4.0 (1.47)
3.9 (1.44)
4.2 (1.51)
4.0 (1.18)
C
4.8 (0.86)
4.8 (1.03)
4.6 (1.33)
4.4 (1.27)
4.7 (1.26)
4.9 (1.07)
4.3 (1.14)
4.5 (1.45)
4.2 (1.93)
4.6 (1.15)
F
4.4 (1.45)
4.4 (1.65)
4.2 (1.72)
4.1 (1.33)
3.8 (1.35)
4.9 (1.75)
4.0 (1.47)
3.4 (1.45)
3.7 (2.09)
4.0 (1.66)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the overall rating of the MOUT assault and
analysis revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than A3 (p-value=0.004815), and F
(p=value=0.004815). Overall, MFR A1 was the preferred MFR system for the FIBUA assault.
4.8
Obstacle Course
After participants completed the obstacle course they completed a task questionnaire that evaluated
found to be acceptable with all ratings above ‘barely acceptable’. MFR A1 had the highest ratings
for all of the criteria when compared to the other MFR systems. All but three of the ratings for MFR
A2 were found to be acceptable with the majority of the ratings between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely
acceptable’. The adjustment, stability, and ease of movement of MFR A2 for this task were found to
be just below ‘borderline’ with ratings of 3.9. Five of the criteria for MFR A3 were found to be
unacceptable (stability, ease of movement, ease of use, load distribution, and physical comfort)
while the remaining five criteria were found to be acceptable with an average rating between
‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable. Similarly to MFR A3, five of the criteria for MFR C were
found to be unacceptable (adjustment, stability, ease of movement, load distribution, and physical
comfort) while the remaining five criteria were found to be acceptable with an average rating
between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable. Only one of the criteria for MFR F was found to be
acceptable (durability) while all of the other criteria were found to be unacceptable with an average
rating that was just below ‘borderline’. All of the MFRs except A1 were found to unacceptable for
stability and ease of movement.
Page 32
Table 11: Obstacle Course Results
n=14
Adjustment
Stability
Ease of Movement
Ease of Use
Load Distribution
Durability
Compatibility
Physical Comfort
Thermal Comfort
Overall Rating
A1
5.2 (1.48)
5.4 (1.45)
5.6 (1.15)
6.0 (0.88)
5.9 (0.92)
5.7 (0.99)
5.4 (1.450
5.4 (1.55)
5.8 (1.05)
5.6 (0.84)
A2
3.9 (1.59)
3.9 (1.64)
3.9 (1.64)
4.2 (1.75)
4.1 (1.82)
5.2 (1.35)
4.2 (2.25)
4.4 (2.06)
4.5 (2.02)
4.0 (1.57)
A3
4.3 (1.68)
3.6 (1.55)
3.8 (1.51)
3.9 (1.49)
3.8 (1.510
4.6 (1.15)
4.0 (1.71)
3.9 (1.98)
4.3 (1.68)
4.0 (1.52)
C
3.5 (1.60)
3.8 (1.80)
3.9 (1.64)
4.2 (1.41)
3.9 (1.77)
4.8 (1.37)
4.5 (1.45)
3.9 (1.86)
4.2 (2.04)
4.2 (1.41)
F
3.2 (1.31)
3.4 (1.60)
3.4 (1.86)
3.6 (1.60)
3.2 (1.46)
4.7 (1.98)
3.1 (1.41)
2.9 (1.46)
3.9 (2.16)
3.8 (1.37)
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed on the overall rating of the obstacle course and
analysis revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than A2 (p-value=0.004236), A3
(p-value=0.004236), C (p-value=0.011545), and F (p=value=0.001016). Overall, MFR A1 was the
preferred MFR system for the obstacle course while the other MFR systems were found to be
unacceptable in at least three of the criteria.
4.9
Live Fire
Participants performed three live fire evaluations with their assigned MFR system. The live fire
serials included a modified run down test with both C7A2 and C9A1, and a tactical shooting test.
Results of the live fire test stands are presented below by serial.
4.9.1
C7A2 Run Down Results
In general, the performance of the MFR systems for the C7A2 run down task was found to be
acceptable – see Table 12. Across all of the criteria MFR A1 was the most acceptable MFR system
with MFR F being the least acceptable system. However, for the vast majority of the criteria all of
the MFR systems had ratings that were above ‘barely acceptable’ with the majority of the ratings
for MFR A1 being greater than ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Page 33
Table 12: C7 Live Fire Rundowns
N=14
Adopting prone fire position
Adopting kneeling fire position
Adopting standing fire position
Running
Sighting
Weapon Stability
Firing
Loading / Unloading / Handling
Accessing Mags / Drums
Clearing Stoppages (if applicable)
Sling Compatibility (if applicable)
Ease of movement
Speed of movement
Weapon
Clothing
Gloves
Overall Equipment Compatibility
Attachment stability of the MFR during live fire
Overall stability
General Compatibility
Fit
Weight
Bulk
Chaffing
Stiffness
Physical comfort
Thermal comfort
Overall Task Performance
A1
6.0 (1.57)
6.4 (0.74)
6.2 (1.05)
6.1 (0.61)
5.7 (1.64)
5.9 (1.44)
6.1 (0.62)
6.1 (0.77)
5.8 (1.18)
5.9 (0.83)
5.8 (0.86)
5.9 (1.00)
5.8 (1.05)
6.1 (0.92)
6.3 (0.83)
6.2 (1.05)
6.2 (0.66)
6.1 (0.77)
6.0 (0.68)
5.9 (0.73)
6.0 (1.04)
5.9 (1.00)
6.2 (0.80)
6.5 (0.84)
6.1 (1.03)
6.1 (0.77)
5.9 (0.95)
6.2 (0.80)
A2
5.6 (1.22)
5.8 (0.80)
5.6 (0.84)
5.7 (0.61)
5.7 (1.14)
5.4 (0.93)
5.4 (1.02)
5.5 (1.29)
5.5 (1.15)
5.3 (1.04)
5.0 (1.04)
5.6 (0.85)
5.6 (0.84)
5.6 (0.93)
6.1 (1.17)
5.1 (0.95)
5.6 (0.84)
5.6 (1.01)
5.6 (0.93)
5.6 (1.34)
4.7 (1.33)
5.4 (0.94)
5.5 (0.76)
5.8 (1.29)
5.8 (1.12)
5.6 (1.28)
5.1 (1.73)
5.9 (1.14)
A3
5.7 (0.99)
5.6 (0.76)
5.6 (1.22)
5.5 (1.22)
5.5 (1.22)
5.4 (1.16)
5.6 (1.15)
5.6 (1.09)
5.6 (0.73)
5.9 (0.61)
5.8 (0.95)
5.9 (1.03)
5.6 (1.01)
5.9 (1.00)
5.9 (1.03)
6.2 (0.89)
5.7 (0.69)
5.3 (1.07)
5.5 (0.85)
5.6 (0.74)
5.0 (1.36)
5.6 (1.09)
5.5 (0.94)
5.8 (1.23)
5.8 (1.19)
5.5 (1.02)
5.2 (1.81)
5.8 (0.80)
C
5.1 (1.35)
5.4 (1.15)
5.5 (1.22)
5.1 (1.14)
5.5 (1.09)
5.5 (1.08)
5.7 (0.91)
5.8 (0.97)
4.8 (1.35)
5.3 (1.07)
5.1 (1.00)
4.3 (1.14)
5.2 (0.97)
5.4 (1.39)
5.9 (1.10)
6.1 (1.00)
5.4 (1.08)
5.5 (1.22)
5.4 (1.22)
5.3 (1.20)
4.9 (1.23)
5.3 (1.20)
5.1 (1.27)
5.3 (1.59)
5.4 (1.45)
5.2 (1.19)
4.9 (1.69)
5.4 (0.92)
F
5.1 (1.23)
5.1 (1.33)
5.2 (1.19)
4.6 (1.19)
5.1 (1.54)
4.8 (1.53)
5.1 (1.46)
5.0 (1.47)
4.5 (1.39)
5.0 (1.24)
4.8 (1.29)
4.7 (1.27)
4.6 (1.39)
4.9 (1.51)
5.6 (1.65)
6.0 (1.41)
5.2 (1.17)
5.1 (1.46)
5.0 (1.52)
4.6 (1.55)
4.7 (1.59)
5.4 (0.85)
5.1 (1.41)
5.8 (1.12)
5.2 (1.81)
5.1 (1.73)
4.9 (2.18)
5.1 (1.07)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the Overall Task Performance and significant
revealed that MFR A1 was found to be significantly more acceptable than MFR F (pvalue=0.002735), as well, MFR A2 was found to be significantly more acceptable than MFR F (pvalue=0.040416).
Overall, all MFR systems were found to be acceptable during the run down task with MFR A1
being the most favoured system. Even though, MFR F was found to be acceptable across all criteria
it was found to be significantly less acceptable than MFRs A1 and A2.
4.9.2
C9 Run Down Results
In general, the performance of the MFR systems for the C9A1 run down task was found to be
acceptable – see Table 13. All of the MFR systems were found to be acceptable across all criteria
except for MFR F which was found to be unacceptable for accessing C9 drums. Similarly to the
C7A2 run down task, across all of the criteria MFR A1 was the most acceptable MFR system and
for the vast majority of the criteria while MFR F was the least acceptable system. However, for the
majority of the criteria all of the MFR systems had ratings that were above ‘barely acceptable’ with
the majority of the ratings for MFR A1 being greater than ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Page 34
Table 13: C9 Live Fire Rundowns
n=14
Adopting prone fire position
Running
Sighting
Weapon Stability
Firing
Accessing Drums
Ease of movement
Speed of movement
Weapon
Clothing
Gloves
Overall stability
General Compatibility
Fit
Weight
Bulk
Chaffing
Stiffness
Physical comfort
Thermal comfort
A1
6.1 (0.77)
5.9 (0.73)
6.0 (0.68)
6.0 (1.11)
5.9 (1.10)
6.1 (0.95)
6.1 (0.53)
5.3 (1.49)
6.3 (0.57)
6.1 (0.83)
6.1 (0.86)
6.2 (0.89)
6.1 (1.10)
6.4 (0.93)
6.3 (0.83)
6.0 (1.04)
6.1 (0.92)
6.1 (0.86)
6.2 (1.05)
6.2 (0.80)
6.1 (0.86)
6.1 (1.00)
6.1 (0.92)
6.4 (0.84)
6.1 (1.00)
6.1 (0.66)
A2
5.5 (1.29)
5.1 (1.03)
5.4 (0.59)
5.3 (0.91)
5.1 (1.03)
5.6 (1.09)
4.9 (1.49)
4.6 (1.50)
5.5 (0.73)
5.4 (0.93)
5.2 (0.80)
5.4 (1.16)
5.7 (1.07)
5.9 (1.27)
5.5 (0.84)
5.1 (0.77)
5.4 (0.74)
5.4 (0.63)
4.9 (1.00)
5.4 (0.85)
5.4 (0.74)
5.8 (0.89)
5.6 (0.92)
5.1 (0.95)
4.9 (1.38)
5.4 (0.74)
A3
5.4 (1.28)
5.1 (1.10)
4.9 (1.33)
5.1 (1.29)
5.1 (1.10)
5.2 (0.95)
5.1 (1.27)
4.2 (1.67)
5.4 (1.15)
5.2 (1.19_
5.0 (1.11)
5.0 (1.30)
5.6 (1.01)
5.7 (0.91)
5.4 (1.08)
5.4 (1.15)
5.1 (1.07)
5.0 (1.04)
4.8 (1.25)
5.1 (1.07)
5.0 (0.96)
5.4 (1.21)
5.2 (1.25)
4.8 (1.25)
4.7 (1.73)
5.2 (0.97)
C
5.4 (1.28)
5.1 (1.03)
5.1 (1.07)
5.4 (1.15)
5.0 (1.04)
5.0 (1.36)
5.3 (1.20)
4.6 (1.44)
5.2 (0.94)
5.1 (1.14)
5.0 (1.11)
5.5 (1.16)
5.8 (1.12)
5.6 (1.39)
5.3 (1.07)
4.9 (1.07)
5.2 (1.19)
5.3 (0.91)
4.9 (1.35)
5.1 (1.10)
5.3 (1.20)
5.5 (1.27)
5.4 (1.34)
4.8 (1.25)
4.9 (1.59)
5.2 (1.05)
F
5.0 (1.57)
4.5 (1.45)
4.3 (1.37)
4.9 (1.17)
4.8 (1.48)
5.0 (1.30)
4.4 (1.55)
3.5 (1.65)
4.2 (1.02)
4.6 (1.39)
4.6 (1.60)
4.8 (1.31)
5.4 (1.22)
5.6 (1.55)
5.0 (1.11)
5.1 (1.29)
5.1 (1.29)
4.9 (1.14)
4.5 (1.56)
5.1 (1.35)
5.0 (1.24)
5.3 (1.37)
5.2 (1.46)
4.8 (1.25)
4.6 (1.74)
4.6 (1.16)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the Overall Task Performance and significant
revealed that MFR A1 was found to be significantly more acceptable than MFR A3 (pvalue=0.027885), MFR C (p-value=0.027885), and MFR F (p-value=0.000171).
Overall, all MFR systems were found to be acceptable during the run down task with MFR A1
being the most favoured system. Even though MFRs A3 and C were found to be acceptable across
all criteria, they were found to be significantly less acceptable than MFR A1 for Overall Task
Performance.
4.9.3
Tactical Shooting Results
In general, the performance of the MFR systems for the tactical shooting task was found to be
acceptable – see Table 14. All of the MFR systems were found to be acceptable across all criteria.
Similarly to the C7A2 and C9A1 run down tasks, across all of the criteria MFR A1 was the most
acceptable MFR system and MFR F was the least acceptable system. However, for all of the criteria
all of the MFR systems had ratings that were above ‘borderline’ with the majority of the ratings for
MFR A1 being greater than ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Page 35
Table 14: C7 Live Fire – Tactical Shooting
n=12
Adopting standing fire position
Sighting
Weapon Stability
Firing
Accessing Mags / Drums
Ease of movement
Speed of movement
Weapon
Clothing
Gloves
Overall stability
Overall Compatibility
Fit
Weight
Bulk
Chaffing
Stiffness
Physical comfort
Thermal comfort
A1
6.2 (0.69)
6.2 (0.69)
6.2 (0.60)
6.0 (0.82)
6.2 (0.55)
5.8 (0.90)
5.7 (1.18)
6.0 (0.71)
6.0 (0.82)
6.0 (0.71)
5.9 (0.76)
6.3 (0.75)
6.2 (1.09)
5.9 (0.64)
5.9 (1.04)
6.0 (0.82)
6.0 (0.58)
5.8 (0.93)
5.8 (1.09)
5.9 (0.64)
6.4 (0.96)
6.2 (0.73)
6.1 (0.64)
6.2 (0.69)
6.1 (0.64)
A2
5.7 (0.75)
6.0 (0.71)
5.4 (1.04)
5.4 (1.04)
5.7 (0.75)
5.0 (1.15)
4.8 (1.01)
5.5 (0.78)
5.3 (0.85)
5.5 (0.66)
5.5 (0.78)
6.0 (0.71)
5.8 (0.99)
5.5 (0.78)
5.5 (0.88)
5.5 (0.78)
5.6 (0.77)
5.0 (1.00)
5.3 (0.85)
5.2 (0.99)
5.6 (1.32)
5.5 (1.33)
5.5 (1.05)
5.4 (1.56)
5.5 (0.66)
A3
5.7 (0.75)
5.8 (0.93)
5.6 (0.87)
5.3 (0.95)
5.8 (0.93)
5.2 (1.28)
5.1 (1.19)
5.5 (0.85)
5.4 (1.12)
5.4 (0.96)
5.5 (0.97)
5.8 (0.83)
6.1 (0.86)
5.8 (0.69)
5.6 (0.77)
5.5 (0.52)
5.6 (0.51)
4.8 (1.46)
5.3 (1.03)
5.2 (0.83)
5.7 (1.01)
5.8 (0.99)
5.8 (0.60)
5.5 (1.61)
5.5 (0.78)
C
5.7 (0.95)
5.7 (0.95)
5.4 (1.19)
5.5 (0.97)
5.9 (0.76)
5.3 (1.32)
4.7 (1.29)
5.5 (1.19)
5.5 (1.05)
5.8 (0.93)
5.5 (1.05)
5.7 (1.11)
6.2 (0.90)
5.4 (1.04)
5.5 (0.78)
5.5 (0.88)
5.4 (1.12)
5.2 (1.09)
5.3 (1.44)
5.2 (1.42)
5.8 (1.46)
5.6 (1.45)
5.3 (1.38)
5.4 (1.56)
5.5 (0.97)
F
5.2 (1.64)
5.4 (1.71)
5.3 (1.65)
5.1 (1.85)
5.2 (1.54)
4.7 (1.65)
4.5 (1.55)
4.8 (1.82)
5.1 (1.61)
4.9 (1.75)
4.8 (1.77)
5.3 (1.65)
5.5 (1.71)
5.1 (1.61)
5.0 (1.68)
5.0 (1.68)
5.0 (1.53)
4.5 (1.61)
4.8 (1.72)
4.5 (1.61)
4.7 (2.29)
4.9 (1.89)
4.7 (1.70)
4.6 (2.26)
4.9 (1.61)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the Overall Task Performance and a significant
difference was identified (F(4,48)=2.7146, p-value=0.04064). A Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis
revealed that MFR A1 was significantly more acceptable than MFR F (p-value=0.015737).
Overall, all MFR systems were found to be acceptable during the tactical shooting task with MFR
A1 being the most favoured system. Even though all MFRs were found to be acceptable across all
criteria, MFR A1 was found to be significantly more acceptable than MFR F for Overall Task
Performance.
4.10 Bulk Assessment
Chest and waist circumference measurements were taken while each participant wore each of the
MFR systems – see Table 15. In terms of chest circumference all of the MFRs were within 4 cm of
each other. Given the design of the MFR systems a great amount of variability in chest
circumferences between MFR systems was not expected. There was approximately 9 cm difference
from MFRs C and A2 to MFR A1 in terms of waist circumference. Since the majority of the
fighting order is carried about the waist greater variability between the MFR systems was expected.
Table 15: Bulk Assessment Results
N=14
Chest Circumference (cm)
Waist Circumference (cm)
Page 36
A1
111.7 (6.68)
160.1 (10.69)
A2
112.7 (7.55)
151.3 (7.34)
A3
114.4 (7.58)
154.7 (9.26)
C
115.2 (6.57)
151.1 (10.21)
F
111.1 (5.40)
155.0 (9.18)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on both the chest and waist circumferences and a
significant difference was only found with respect to waist circumference (F(4,52)=3.1461, pvalue=0.02166), where MFR A1 was found to be significantly larger at the waist than MFR A2 (pvalue=0.031027) and MFR C (p-value=0.025230). No significant differences were found between
the MFR systems with respect to chest circumference (F(4,52)=1.4439, p-value=0.23277).
A small group of participants were chosen to compare the chest and waist measurements of the
MFR systems with the current in-service fragmentation vest in an attempt to quantify how much
bulk the MFR systems add to the soldier. – see Figure 26 and Figure 27. In an attempt to
characterize differences due to MFR size, the three participants selected each represented an MFR
size (participant 15=small, participant 22=medium, participant 23=large). There was not much
variation in chest circumference between the MFRs and the fragmentation vest. However, there
were large differences in waist circumference, between the MFRs and the fragmentation vest, due to
the majority of the load being carried at the waist level. On average the addition of the MFR added
40 – 80 cm of bulk to the waist of the soldier. The C9 gunner had a typically wider waist (except for
A2) and chest compared to the riflemen; he was also the largest of the three participants. The
differences in waist circumference between participants 15 (blue line) and 22 (red line), for MFRs
A2, A3, and C, illustrate that there are different options to carrying the same load which has an
impact on the overall bulk of the soldier. The actual waist circumference difference between
participant 15 and 22 was 15 cm while some waist circumference differences while wearing the
same MFR were 20 – 30 cm. Bulk results were confounded by the fact that participants could
mount pouches where they wanted.
C hes t C irc umferenc e
C irc um ferenc e (c m )
130
120
110
100
15 - riflemen
90
22 - riflemen
80
A1
A2
A3
C
F
F rag B as e
V es t
23 - C 9
MF R
Figure 26: Chest Circumference Results
Page 37
C irc um ferenc e (c m )
Wais t C irc umferenc e
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
15 - riflemen
22 - riflemen
A1
A2
A3
C
F
F rag B as e
V es t
23 - C 9
MF R
Figure 27: Waist Circumference Results
4.11 Physical Discomfort
At the conclusion of each day participants completed a physical discomfort questionnaire to identify
any areas where the MFR caused discomfort. The areas of discomfort were divided between the
front and back of the torso and upper thighs. Figure 28 identifies the locations of physical
discomfort that was identified by the participants, as well as, the count of how many times it was
identified and the average discomfort rating. The shoulder area was the most common area for
discomfort with MFR F having the largest number of participants indicating it as a problem area, as
well as, having the highest discomfort rating of 3.4. Another common area of discomfort was the
hip area where like the shoulder area MFR F had the largest number of participants indicating it as a
problem, as well as, having the highest discomfort rating of 3.6. There was only a single instance
where participants indicated physical discomfort in the area of the legs and armpits. On the back of
the torso the most common areas of physical discomfort were the neck and low back. With respect
to the low back, MFR C had 6 participants rate it as an area of discomfort with a rating of 3.0.
However, MFRs A2 and A3 each had 5 participants rate it as an area of discomfort with a larger
discomfort rating of 3.6 and 3.8 respectively. MFR F had the highest number of participants rating
the neck as an area of discomfort with a high discomfort rating of 4.5. Adding up all of the
instances of physical discomfort noted by the participants across all locations, MFR A1 had 11
occurrences, MFR A2 had 18 occurrences, MFR A3 had 16 occurrences, MFR C had 19
occurrences, and MFR F had 23 occurrences. With respect to physical discomfort, MFR A1 appears
to be the most comfortable MFR followed by MFR A3.
Page 38
Shoulders
Count
A1A2
7
9
Neck
Rating
Count
2
Armpits
3.1
A3
7
3
C
6
2
F
10
3.4
F
Rating
A3
1
4
Count
Rating
C
3
2.3
1
2
F
4
4.5
Mid/Upper Back
Count
Rating
2
2.5
A3
1
3
C
1
4
A2
Hips
Count
Rating
A1
2
2.5
A2
2
2.5
A3
1
4
C
3
3.3
F
5
3.6
Low Back
Legs
A3
Count
Rating
1
3
Count
Rating
A1
2
2
A2
5
3.6
A3
5
3.8
C
6
3
F
3
3
Figure 28: Physical Discomfort Locations and Ratings
4.12 Daily Exit Questionnaire
At the conclusion of each day (and conclusion of wearing each MFR system), each participant
completed a daily exit questionnaire on a wide range of criteria. The results are shown below in
Table 16 and Table 17.
MFR A1 had ratings that ranged from ‘barely acceptable’ to ‘completely acceptable’ with the
majority of the ratings being between ‘barely acceptable’ to ‘reasonably acceptable’. MFR A1 did
not have any instances where it was found to have a mean rating of unacceptable. MFR A1 had an
overall rating of 6.3 which is between ‘reasonable acceptable’ and ‘completely acceptable’.
MFR A2 had ratings that ranged from ‘barely unacceptable’ to ‘reasonably acceptable’ with the
majority of the ratings being between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR A2 had eight
instances where it was found to have a mean rating that was unacceptable (fit with combat uniform,
ease of use, donning, doffing, medical access, compatibility with C9A1, pressure points, and
comfort). MFR A2 had an overall rating of 4.4 which is between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely
acceptable’.
MFR A3 had ratings that ranged from ‘barely unacceptable’ to ‘reasonably acceptable’ with the
majority of the ratings being between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR A3 had nine
instances where it was found to have a mean rating that was unacceptable (ease of adjustment, ease
of use, compatibility with C9A1, doffing, medical access, chaffing, pressure points, thermal
Page 39
comfort, and donning). MFR A3 had an overall rating of 4.3 which is between ‘borderline’ and
‘barely acceptable’.
MFR C had ratings that ranged from ‘barely unacceptable’ to ‘completely acceptable’ with the
majority of the ratings being between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR C had five
instances where it was found to have a mean rating that was unacceptable (ease of adjustment,
range of adjustability, ease of use, doffing, and donning). MFR C had an overall rating of 4.8 which
is between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’.
MFR F had ratings that ranged from ‘barely unacceptable’ to ‘barely acceptable’ with the majority
of the ratings being between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely acceptable’. MFR F had 25 instances where it
was found to have a mean rating that was unacceptable (ease of adjustment, stability while running,
ease of use, donning, modularity and configurability (for your configuration, by role, by load),
medical access, trunk motion, irregular loads, comfort, load distribution, chaffing, pressure points,
compatibility (weapon slings, rucksack, small pack, hydration system, C4 respirator), bulk, width
when loaded, depth when loaded, bulk at chest, weight, and overall rating). MFR F had an overall
rating of 3.7 which is between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely unacceptable’.
Page 40
Table 16: Daily Exit Questionnaire Results (1)
n=14
Fit & Adjustability
Fit with Combat Uniform only
Fit over FPV
Ease of Adjustment
Range of Adjustability
Adjustment Retention
Stability
With Combat Uniform
With FPV
While running
Ease of Use
Donning
Doffing
For Your Configuration
Medical Access
Modularity & Configurability
By Mission
By Role
By Load
By Preference / Handedness
Mobility & ROM
Combat Movements
Arm Motion Overhead
Arm Motion In Front
Trunk Motion
Head Motion
Capacity
Combat Load for your designated configuration
Irregular Loads
Comfort
Load Distribution
Chaffing
Pressure Points
Thermal
Equipment Compatibility
C7A1/A2
Weapon Slings
C9/A1
Pistol
FPV
Rucksack
Small Pack
Hydration System
C4 Respirator
PRR
Gloves
A1
5.8 (0.89)
5.8 (0.89)
6.5 (0.52)
5.9 (1.38)
6.1 (0.83)
5.7 (1.49)
6.0 (0.96)
5.5 (1.56)
6.5 (0.65)
5.8 (0.86)
6.2 (0.58)
6.4 (0.84)
6.6 (0.50)
6.4 (0.63)
6.1 (0.92)
6.1 (0.47)
5.9 (0.83)
5.9 (0.73)
6.0 (1.11)
6.3 (0.73)
5.9 (0.92)
6.1 (1.10)
6.1 (1.14)
5.9 (1.33)
5.9 (1.17)
6.4 (0.84)
5.9 (0.83)
5.6 (1.28)
5.4 (1.60)
5.8 (0.95)
5.9 (1.41)
5.7 (1.54)
5.5 (1.56)
5.4 (1.60)
6.0 (0.96)
5.9 (1.44)
5.5 (1.13)
5.6 (0.80)
6.0 (1.41)
6.2 (1.05)
5.7 (1.59)
6.1 (0.83)
5.7 (1.59)
4.7 (1.78)
5.8 (1.03)
6.4 (0.65)
A2
4.5 (1.45)
4.6 (1.55)
4.3 (1.90)
4.1 (2.07)
4.0 (1.71)
4.6 (1.34)
4.3 (1.58)
3.9 (1.64)
4.8 (1.76)
4.3 (1.77)
3.5 (1.73)
3.3 (2.02)
3.6 (2.10)
4.2 (1.97)
3.6 (1.74)
4.4 (1.32)
4.6 (1.45)
4.4 (1.55)
4.6 (1.55)
5.2 (1.42)
4.5 (1.59)
4.9 (1.66)
4.9 (1.86)
4.9 (1.96)
4.9 (1.66)
5.4 (1.82)
4.7 (1.67)
4.6 (1.70)
4.2 (1.72)
3.7 (1.25)
4.1 (1.56)
4.2 (1.63)
3.9 (1.46)
4.3 (1.90)
4.0 (1.84)
5.4 (1.32)
4.0 (1.52)
3.8 (1.56)
5.6 (1.82)
5.2 (1.58)
4.9 (1.38)
4.9 (1.82)
4.8 (2.08)
4.3 (1.95)
5.0 (1.75)
5.0 (1.41)
A3
4.2 (1.25
4.0 (1.36)
4.1 (1.44)
3.8 (1.19)
4.0 (1.57)
4.4 (1.49)
4.3 (1.38)
4.0 (1.66)
4.5 (1.22)
4.0 (1.04)
3.9 (1.38)
3.5 (1.55)
3.4 (1.64)
4.3 (1.43)
3.6 (1.60)
4.4 (1.21)
4.4 (1.21)
4.3 (1.06)
4.2 (1.56)
4.5 (1.22)
4.9 (1.07)
4.9 (1.27)
5.1 (1.14)
5.2 (1.05)
4.5 (1.15)
4.8 (1.51)
4.4 (1.07)
4.7 (1.26)
4.0 (1.52)
4.2 (1.17)
4.2 (1.61)
3.9 (1.69)
3.6 (1.55)
3.9 (1.59)
4.1 (1.21)
4.7 (1.36)
4.0 (1.57)
3.5 (1.32)
5.5 (1.78)
5.2 (1.10)
4.8 (1.23)
4.3 (1.42)
4.6 (1.58)
5.5 (0.62)
5.1 (1.27)
5.3 (1.43)
C
4.5 (1.54)
4.2 (1.62)
4.8 (1.87)
3.4 (1.73)
3.6 (1.50)
4.4 (1.39)
4.4 (1.58)
4.1 (1.90)
5.0 (1.41)
4.2 (1.67)
3.7 (1.47)
3.4 (1.98)
3.8 (1.96)
4.7 (1.59)
4.0 (1.71)
4.5 (0.91)
4.9 (1.00)
4.9 (1.00)
4.8 (1.17)
4.8 (1.46)
4.8 (1.40)
4.8 (1.31)
4.7 (1.38)
4.8 (1.31)
4.7 (1.32)
5.7 (1.26)
4.5 (1.35)
4.8 (1.87)
4.4 (1.54)
4.3 (1.36)
4.3 (1.81)
4.6 (1.39)
4.6 (1.44)
4.5 (1.99)
4.7 (1.04)
5.1 (1.38)
4.3 (1.18)
4.5 (1.04)
6.2 (0.86)
5.2 (1.19)
4.4 (1.86)
4.6 (1.82)
4.5 (1.49)
4.2 (1.64)
5.0 (1.47)
5.7 (1.20)
F
4.2 (1.25)
4.4 (1.22)
4.5 (1.22)
3.4 (1.22)
4.0 (1.30)
4.1 (1.35)
4.2 (1.29)
4.1 (1.51)
4.5 (1.51)
3.9 (1.69)
3.9 (1.33)
3.9 (1.14)
4.6 (1.60)
3.4 (1.50)
3.4 (1.60)
4.2 (0.95)
4.1 (1.27)
3.9 (0.73)
3.6 (1.08)
4.1 (1.82)
4.3 (1.42)
4.1 (1.64)
4.3 (1.68)
4.4 (1.55)
3.8 (1.85)
5.1 (1.23)
4.2 (1.35)
4.0 (1.57)
3.6 (1.50)
2.9 (1.44)
3.4 (1.45)
3.2 (1.97)
3.0 (1.75)
4.1 (2.02)
4.1 (1.14)
4.1 (1.27)
3.5 (1.50)
4.0 (1.36)
5.2 (1.41)
4.3 (1.20)
3.6 (1.55)
3.5 (1.22)
3.7 (1.67)
3.7 (1.45)
4.4 (1.69)
5.1 (1.79)
Page 41
Table 17: Daily Exit Questionnaire Results (2)
n=14
Bulk
Width When Loaded
Depth When Loaded
At Chest
Durability & Maintenance
Hardware
Fabric
Stitches / Seaming
Cleaning
Repairability
Material Properties
Noise Signature
Camouflage
Weight
Overall Rating
A1
5.7 (0.69)
5.7 (0.91)
5.8 (0.80)
5.9 (1.03)
5.9 (0.73)
5.3 (1.32)
6.1 (0.73)
6.0 (0.96)
5.6 (0.98)
5.8 (0.77)
5.9 (0.83)
5.9 (1.03)
6.1 (1.07)
5.8 (1.17)
6.3 (0.57)
A2
4.5 (1.86)
4.6 (1.82)
4.5 (1.74)
4.5 (2.31)
5.5 (1.06)
4.9 (1.44)
5.4 (1.00)
5.1 (1.33)
4.8 (1.23)
4.5 (1.11)
4.4 (1.25)
5.1 (1.51)
5.2 (1.67)
4.5 (1.87)
4.4 (1.15)
A3
4.3 (1.42)
4.4 (1.27)
4.2 (1.51)
4.3 (1.38)
4.9 (0.92)
4.7 (1.13)
5.2 (1.03)
4.9 (1.21)
5.1 (0.92)
5.1 (0.92)
4.9 (0.92)
4.8 (1.25)
5.0 (1.30)
4.2 (1.37)
4.3 (0.99)
C
4.5 (1.68)
4.5 (1.95)
4.2 (2.01)
4.5 (1.45)
5.0 (1.04)
4.9 (1.44)
5.3 (1.18)
5.1 (1.14)
5.0 (1.30)
5.2 (1.23)
5.3 (0.96)
5.4 (1.08)
5.0 (1.57)
4.7 (1.58)
4.8 (1.12)
F
3.9 (1.44)
3.1 (1.75)
2.9 (1.86)
3.6 (1.86)
5.1 (1.38)
4.6 (1.90)
5.0 (1.47)
5.1 (1.38)
5.0 (1.41)
4.8 (1.37)
4.9 (1.07)
4.9 (1.44)
5.0 (1.41)
3.9 (1.61)
3.7 (1.33)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the overall rating of the daily exit questionnaire
and significant differences were identified (F(4,52)=11.836, p-value=<0.0000). A Tukey's HSD
post hoc analysis revealed that MFR A1 was rated significantly more acceptable than MFR A2 (pvalue=0.000274), MFR A3 (p-value=0.000207), MFR C (p-value=0.003689), and MFR F (pvalue=0.000126). No other significant differences for the overall rating were identified. Overall,
MFR A1 was the only MFR system to have acceptable mean ratings across all of the criteria of the
daily exit questionnaire and it was the preferred MFR system.
4.13 Features
At the end of trial participants were given a questionnaire that evaluated the acceptability of the
features of each of the MFR systems. The features were separated into common features which
were shared across all of the MFR systems and specific features which were unique to the
individual MFR.
4.13.1 Common Features
Common features across the MFR systems include the opening, Pouch Attachment Ladder System
(PALS) real estate on the front and back, the extraction handle, and the waist attachment/adjustment
– see Table 18. The front opening feature of A1 was the preferred opening method over the other
MFRs with a rating that was almost ‘completely acceptable’. Participants did not prefer the side
opening feature of MFR A2 and C as both of their openings were found to be unacceptable with
values below ‘borderline’. The front opening feature of MFR F was also preferred with a rating that
almost ‘reasonably acceptable’. Participants rated the PALS real estate of each of the MFRs as
acceptable with the amount of PALS on the front of MFR A2 as the preferred amount followed by
MFR A1. All of the MFRs had mean acceptability ratings above ‘reasonably acceptable’ for PALS
real estate on back except for MFR F which had a rating that was unacceptable. The extraction
handle on each of the MFR systems were found to be acceptable except for MFR A1 where
participants claimed that it was too small to get a hand under the handle and they noted that it may
break when carrying a large sized soldier in full fighting order. The most favoured extraction handle
was with MFR F with a rating that was between ‘reasonably acceptable’ and ‘completely
acceptable’. The waist attachment/adjustment systems on MFRs A1, A2, and F were found to be
acceptable with the location of the waist attachment/adjustment system of MFR A1 and F is at the
Page 42
front. The MFRs which had the location of the waist attachment/adjustment at the rear was found to
be unacceptable.
Table 18: Common Features
Opening (front/side)
PALS real estate (front)
PALS real estate (back)
Extraction Handle
Waist Attachment/ Adjustment
A1
6.9 (0.36)
6.3 (0.91)
6.1 (1.14)
3.9 (1.75)
5.3 (1.64)
A2
3.4 (1.28)
6.8 (0.43)
6.0 (1.18)
5.7 (1.07)
4.1 (1.49)
A3
4.3 (1.73)
4.4 (1.08)
6.3 (0.75)
4.1 (1.33)
3.8 (1.67)
C
3.8 (1.63)
5.8 (0.97)
6.2 (0.90)
5.0 (1.24)
3.5 (1.70)
F
5.8 (1.53)
4.9 (0.62)
3.6 (1.60)
6.4 (0.94)
5.6 (1.50)
Overall, participants preferred a front opening vest with the waist attachment/adjustment
mechanism closer to the front of the vest and an extraction handle that allows soldiers to get their
gloved hand underneath it to effectively extract a large soldier.
4.13.2 Specific Features
Participants rated all of the specific features of MFR A1 as acceptable – see Table 19. The most
favoured feature was the side release buckles at the front while the least favourite feature was the
amount of padding. All of the specific features of MFR A1 had acceptability ratings above ‘barely
acceptable’.
Table 19: A1 Features
Feature
Side Release Buckles
Webbing Loops
Plastic Loops
Mesh Material
Padding
Mean Rating (SD)
6.8 (0.44)
6.2 (0.69)
6.4 (0.93)
6.0 (0.88)
5.4 (1.21)
Participants rated all of the specific features of MFR A2 as acceptable – see Table 20. The most
favoured feature was the shoulder attachment/adjustment which allowed soldiers to easily adjust
their vest, while the least favourite feature was the internal pocket which soldiers noted that they
may not use. All of the specific features of MFR A2 had acceptability ratings that were between
‘borderline’ and ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Feature
Plastic Loops
Internal Mesh Pocket
Shoulder Strap Padding
Internal Pocket
Shoulder Attachment/Adjustment
Mean Rating (SD)
5.2 (1.53)
5.2 (1.48)
5.1 (1.32)
4.3 (1.62)
5.7 (0.99)
Participants rated all but one (plastic loops) of the specific features of MFR A3 as acceptable – see
Table 21. The most favoured feature was the shoulder attachment/adjustment which allowed
soldiers to easily adjust their vest while the least favourite feature was the plastic loops which some
participants noted that there may be no use for them. All of the specific features of MFR A3 had
acceptability ratings above ‘barely unacceptable’ to ‘reasonably acceptable’.
Page 43
Feature
Internal Mesh Pocket
Padding
PALS on Shoulder Straps
Plastic Loops
Shoulder Attachment/ Adjustment
Mean Rating (SD)
4.9 (1.10)
4.4 (1.02)
4.2 (1.67)
3.8 (1.96)
5.9 (0.92)
Participants rated three of the specific features of MFR C as acceptable while three of the specific
features were rated as unacceptable – see Table 22. The features that were rated as acceptable were
the PALS on the shoulder straps, the flap with the hook and loop, and the padding with the flap with
hook and loop having the highest acceptability rating of ‘reasonably acceptable’. The features that
were rated as unacceptable were shoulder attachment/adjustment, bib with D-ring & snap, and
internal pocket. Participants noted that the D-ring and snap may have durability issues and they
might not have any use for the internal pocket.
Table 22: C Features
Feature
PALS on shoulder
Bib with D-ring & snap
Internal Pocket
Flap with Hook and Loop
Padding
Mean Rating (SD)
3.1 (1.35)
4.2 (1.72)
3.0 (1.62)
3.8 (1.40)
6.2 (0.60)
4.7 (1.20)
Participants only rated two of the specific features of MFR F as acceptable (padding, central
adapter) – see Table 23. The PALS on shoulder straps, waist adjustment, shoulder attachment, and
back adjustment were all found to be unacceptable as the locations of each these items may not be
ideal. Participants rated the central adapter of MFR F as the best feature while the worst rated
feature was the PALS on the shoulder straps.
Table 23: F Features
Feature
Mean Rating (SD)
PALS on Shoulder Straps
Waist Adjustment
Back Adjustment
Padding
Central Adapter
2.4 (1.28)
3.5 (1.74)
3.8 (1.58)
3.4 (1.69)
5.0 (1.57)
6.1 (0.62)
4.14 Final Exit Questionnaire
At the conclusion of the trial participants completed a final exit questionnaire that prompted the
participants to rate the acceptance of the MFRs against each other and the in-service tactical vest
across a wide range of criteria – see Table 24. MFR A1 had mean acceptance ratings across all
criteria that were between ‘reasonably acceptable’ and ‘completely acceptable’. MFR A1 also had
the highest acceptance ratings across all of the criteria, when compared to the other MFRs, for all
but one of the criteria (capacity). MFR A2 was found to be acceptable across all of the criteria with
the vast majority of the criteria between ‘barely acceptable’ and ‘reasonably acceptable’. Due to the
Page 44
large amount of PALS real estate on the front, MFR A2 had the highest acceptance ratings for
capacity. MFR A3 was also found to have mean acceptance ratings that were acceptable across all
criteria with all of the acceptance ratings ranging from ‘borderline’ to ‘reasonably acceptable’. Of
all the criteria for MFR A3, durability and maintenance had the highest rating while fit and
adjustability had the lowest ratings. MFR C had mean acceptance ratings of acceptable across all of
the criteria with the vast majority of the ratings being between ‘barely acceptable’ and ‘reasonably
acceptable’. The majority of the ratings for MFR F were between ‘borderline’ and ‘barely
acceptable’ with fit and adjustability and overall rating being unacceptable with a rating below
‘borderline’. The current in-service tactical vest served as a comparison to the MFR systems and
was rated using the same criteria. The in-service tactical vest had acceptable mean ratings across all
of the criteria except for modularity and configurability where it had a mean rating that was
unacceptable.
Table 24: Final Exit Questionnaire Results
n=14
Fit & Adjustability
Stability
Ease of Use
Modularity & Configurability
Mobility & ROM
Capacity
Comfort
Equipment Compatibility
Bulk
Durability & Maintenance
Material Properties
Overall Rating
A1
6.2 (0.70)
6.3 (0.61)
6.4 (0.63)
6.4 (0.51)
6.1 (0.53)
6.1 (0.73)
6.5 (0.52)
6.3 (0.61)
6.1 (0.66)
6.3 (0.61)
6.1 (0.73)
6.4 (0.50)
A2
4.8 (1.05)
5.9 (0.95)
5.5 (0.94)
6.3 (0.47)
5.6 (0.51)
6.4 (0.51)
5.6 (0.84)
5.7 (0.73)
5.4 (0.84)
6.3 (0.73)
5.4 (0.93)
5.1 (0.53)
A3
4.5 (1.02)
5.4 (1.15)
5.0 (1.11)
4.7 (1.07)
5.7 (0.73)
4.9 (0.86)
5.1 (1.03)
5.3 (0.91)
5.1 (1.10)
5.9 (1.03)
5.3 (0.83)
4.7 (0.61)
C
4.1 (0.95)
5.1 (1.54)
5.3 (1.14)
5.8 (1.05)
5.2 (0.70)
6.2 (0.89)
5.0 (0.88)
5.0 (1.11)
4.6 (1.22)
6.1 (0.73)
5.1 (0.86)
4.7 (0.99)
F
3.4 (1.34)
4.2 (1.53)
4.7 (1.20)
4.1 (1.00)
5.2 (1.19)
4.2 (1.12)
4.2 (1.67)
4.2 (1.31)
4.5 (1.09)
4.1 (1.75)
4.3 (1.77)
3.7 (1.33)
TV
5.4 (1.70)
6.4 (0.93)
6.1 (0.95)
3.6 (2.41)
6.0 (0.68)
4.8 (1.31)
5.7 (0.91)
5.5 (1.02)
5.4 (0.94)
5.4 (1.15)
5.6 (1.28)
5.6 (0.74)
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on each of the criteria across all the MFRs and the
current in-service tactical vest. Significant differences were identified across all of the criteria and a
Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis identified the specific differences. Details of the significant
differences are detailed below with p-values in brackets:
•
Fit and Adjustability (F(5,65)=12.816, p-value=<0.0001)
o
o
o
•
TV>C (0.020961), F (0.000151)
o
A1>C (0.031760), F (0.000147)
o
TV>C (0.019206), F (0.000138)
A2>F (0.001199)
Ease of Use (F(5,65)=6.1355, p-value=0.0001)
o
o
•
A2>F (0.007321)
Stability (F(5,65)=8.75, p-value=<0.0001)
o
•
A1>A2(0.007321), A3(0.000787), C (0.000151), F (0.000130)
A1>A3 (0.005777), F (0.000546)
TV>A3 (0.031173), F (0.003160)
Modularity and Configurability (F(5,65)=14.053, p-value=<0.0001)
Page 45
o
o
o
•
o
o
o
o
A1>A3(0.002447), C (0.000685), F (0.000130)
A2>F (0.001273)
TV>F (0.000685)
A1>C (0.008428), F (0.000133)
o
TV>F (0.008428)
A3> F (0.044626)
Bulk (F(5,65)=6.0556, p-value=0.00012)
A1>C (0.000533), F (0.000320)
Durability and Maintenance (F(5,65)=11.706, p-value=<0.0001)
o
F< A1 (0.000130), A2 (0.000130), A3 (0.000179), C (0.000134), TV (0.008604)
Material Properties (F(5,65)=4.8392, p-value=0.00080)
o
o
•
C>A3 (0.001083), F (0.000131), TV (0.000570)
A2>F (0.001333)
o
•
A2>A3 (0.000210), F (0.000130), TV (0.000163)
o
o
•
A1>A3 (0.004326), F (0.000132), TV (0.002167)
Equipment Compatibility (F(5,65)=7.5746, p-value=0.00001)
o
•
A1>C (0.012536), F (0.012536)
Comfort (F(5,65)=10.298, p-value=<0.0001)
o
•
C>F (0.004349), TV (0.000214)
Capacity (F(5,65)=16.589, p-value=<0.0001)
o
•
A2>A3 (0.11325), F (0.000214), TV (0.000131)
Mobility & ROM (F(5,65)=4.1525, p-value=0.00246)
o
•
A1>A3(0.004349), F (0.000154), TV (0.000130)
A1>F (0.000298)
TV>F (0.13974)
Overall Ratings (F(5,65)=17.035, p-value=<0.0001)
o
A1>A2 (0.002907), A3 (0.000147), C (0.000147), F (0.000130)
o
TV>A3 (0.042450), C (0.042450), F (0.000131)
o
A2 (0.000390), A3 (0.022844), C (0.022844)>F
Based on the overall ratings the MFRs in order from most acceptable to least acceptable are as
follows: A1, A2, A3, C, and F. The current in-service tactical vest would be ranked between MFR
A1 and A2. There was no significantly significant difference between MFR A3 and C for overall
rating.
Page 46
4.15 Design Principles
At the end of the trial participants were asked to come up with the optimal location of pouches
based on their specific role. The specific roles include riflemen, commander, C9 gunner, and M203
gunner. The location of certain pouches led to several design principles for each of the roles as
guide to configuring every MFR for a specific role.
4.15.1 Riflemen
•
Two to four single shingle open top pouches for C7 magazines;
•
Rest of C7 magazines to be placed in designated magazine pouches (i.e. triple mag pouch);
•
C7 Magazine pouches should be located central and at the waist (easily accessible);
•
Utility/larger pouches should be located at the waist level and to the side;
•
Radio pouch should be located at the top part of vest near the shoulder;
o
Opposite shoulder to dominate rifle shoulder weld;
•
Remaining pouches (fragmentation grenade, smoke grenade) can be located either between
already mounted pouches or stacked with utility pouches; and
•
Medical Pouch should be located near the back or a place that is easily accessible to others.
4.15.2 Commander
•
Similar to riflemen except for the addition of the PRC 152 Radio.
4.15.3 C9 Gunner
•
Two single shingle open top pouches mounted in the centre of the vest (or slightly off to one
side) at waist level;
•
On both sides of the single shingle open top pouch, 200rd 5.56mm link ammo pouches can be
mounted;
•
Utility/larger pouches should be located at the waist level and to the side (outside of 5.56mm
link ammunition pouches);
•
Radio pouch should be located close to the top of the vest on either the top panel or shoulder
strap;
o
Opposite shoulder to rifle shoulder weld;
•
Grenade and smoke pouches can be attached to available space between pouches or the outside
of utility pouches;
•
Medical pouch should be located at the waist level near the back;
•
Potential Pouch Set-up (from centre to outside):
o
2x single shingle open top pouch (stacked), 200 rd 5.56mm link ammo pouch,
utility pouch, medical pouch; and
o
Radio and 9mm ammo pouch mounted on shoulder straps or bib portion of vest.
Page 47
4.15.4 M203 Gunner
•
Follow similar principles as riflemen;
•
Vest should be set up to reflect the C7 as the primary weapon (M203 is secondary);
•
Single shingle open top pouches should be located central and at waist level;
•
Utility pouches should be located at the side of single shingle open top pouches;
•
Medical pouch should be located near the back;
•
4 x 40mm round pouch can be mounted on PALS webbing located on shoulder strap or
on bib;
•
Remaining 40mm rounds can be placed in utility pouch (zipper closure system on some
utility pouches may open during the course of military combat operations) or mounted
on the outside of utility pouches using 4 x 40mm round pouches;
•
For vests that do not have PALS webbing across chest, may have to use a designated
40mm round belt (holds 12 rounds); and
•
Remaining ammunition pouches can be mounted on remaining PALS webbing or on
the outside of already mounted pouches.
4.16 Focus Group Discussion
At the end of the trial participants took part in a focus group discussion and provided input into the
pros and cons of each of the MFR systems. Participants also provided a single overall acceptance
rating per MFR system. These results are summarized in Table 25. Participants believed that MFR
A1 was the best overall system because it was modular and configurable while being the most
similar to the current in-service tactical vest and that the front opening feature allowed them to don
and doff the vest without removing their helmet as with MFR A2 and MFR C. One of the negatives
of MFR A1 was that the extraction handle was too small and poses a potential risk to breaking
under normal loads. MFR A2 was also liked by the participants for its additional space to load extra
items and provided easy access to the items; however it was thought to be bulkier, hotter, and not as
comfortable as MFR A1. MFR A3 was rated not as good as MFR A2 and A1 due to lack of
sufficient vest space and that the shoulder straps tended to slide off of the shoulders. Participants
noted that a potential solution for this would be the addition of a sternum strap. MFR C was rated
very similarly to MFR A3. Participants noted that some negative aspects of MFR C included having
the two waist attachment and adjustment straps created an entanglement issue that might be
resolved with a single larger strap. Participants noted that MFR C was noticeably hotter than MFR
A1 and the buttons that hold the bib to the shoulder straps came undone. MFR F was noted as being
the least acceptable vest with over 50% of the participants giving it a rating of 3.0, which was
unacceptable. Participants claimed that when too many items were carried on the front of the vest it
shifted the vest forward and although the X-harness at the back was comfortable it was a source of
entanglement.
Page 48
Table 25: MFR Pros and Cons
MFR
A1
•
Rating of 7
A2
•
Rating of 5.5
A3
•
Rating of 4
•
•
•
58% rate it a 4
21% rate it a 5
21% rate it a 3
C
•
Rating of 4.3
•
•
71% rate it a 4
29% rate it a 5
PROS
CONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good Comfort
Quick attachment
Ease of donning/doffing
Weight Distribution
Similar to Tactical Vest
Noticeable breathability
Lots of space
Easy access to items
Mostly comfortable but not
as good as A1
•
•
Easy adjustment
Back is wide
•
D rings on bottom of vest are
a nice feature
•
Extraction handle is too small
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bulky
Can be overloaded due to large size
Have to remove helmet to don and doff vest
Vest is hotter
Front heavy vest
Back pocket on inside of vest is useless
Straps slide off the shoulders and vest moves
(potential for sternum strap)
Lots of loss vest space
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
F
•
Rating of 2.4
•
•
•
•
29% rate it a 1
7% rate it a 2
57% rate it a 3
7% rate it a 4
•
•
•
•
•
Front attachment
Wide X harness at back is
comfortable
Good load distribution
Extraction handle is good
size
Centre Adapter
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have to take off helmet to don and doff
The buttons come undone on the front (64%)
It is too high and too tight
A hook and loop adjustment system would be better
Having two waist attachment straps causes
entanglement; maybe have one larger one
C9 drum pouches that came with vest were not sized
properly
The vest was hotter
Gets tangled easily
50% of participants had the yoke dig into their neck
Extra straps encumbers
Too many items need to be carried at the waist and
shifts the vest forward.
PALS on shoulder straps are too high
Participants were also given the opportunity to provide an overall rating for the entire A system,
which includes MFR A1, A2, and A3. Participants noted that as a system A would get a rating
between ‘reasonably acceptable’ and ‘completely acceptable’. However, participants also noted that
not all of the A system needs to be included. The only front panels that would need to be included
would be from A1 and A2 as participants mentioned that the front panel from A3 ‘brings nothing to
the table’. Also the only back panel that the participants thought they would need would be from
A2. Therefore, out of the possible 3 front panels and 3 back panels these participants thought that
only 2 front panels and a single back panel would be needed.
Page 49
5. Discussion and Recommendations
The aim of this pilot trial was to provide a preliminary assessment of each of the MFR candidates
for their usability, acceptability to soldiers, and compatibility with a range of soldier equipment and
tasks, as well as, a preliminary assessment and characterization of the preferred placement of soldier
load items. Due to other trials running only 14 soldiers participated in this pilot trial.
Of the 14 participants in this trial all of them used the current in-service tactical vest as their
primary vest and only two participants that had prior exposure to a modular tactical vest. The lack
of exposure to modular vests is likely due to the lack of combat experience that our participants had
which was vastly different from the SME jury that was conducted in July 2009. Almost all of the
participants in the SME jury used a modular tactical vest in combat. Therefore, the fighting load
that was imposed on the pilot trial participants to carry, as determined by the SME jury, was unique
to almost all of the participants as they were not used to carrying that much ammunition. This
additional load imposed a slight learning curve to the participants as they were uncertain as to how
to carry this load comfortably using the available pouches. For example, instead of using dedicated
C7 magazine pouches for C7 magazines participants were putting 6 -7 magazines into a utility
pouch to free up space on the vests. M203 gunners tended fill a large utility pouch with 40mm
grenades instead of using dedicated 40mm storage pouches. This lack of experience of the
participants was a large factor as to why they carried their fighting load vastly different than the
way the participants at the SME jury carried their fighting load.
The MFRs that were evaluated in this trial had many similarities but different feature sets. MFR A3
and F were similar to webbing style load carriage vests while MFR A2 and C had a similar design
with added PALS real estate in the front in the form of a bib. MFR C allowed the option of
removing the bib portion of the vest, while MFR A1 was a front opening vest that had the most
similarities to the current in-service tactical vest. Due to time constraints the current in-service
tactical vest not included in this testing. Since the majority of the participants experience was with
the current tactical vest it may have received more favourable ratings in the pilot trial than the
ratings from the participants at the SME jury where it received an overall rating between
‘reasonably unacceptable’ and ‘completely unacceptable’. Therefore, in future evaluations the inservice tactical vest should be included as a control condition for evaluation.
Even though the vests had many similarities they also had many differences, such as the individual
feature sets to each of the vests, as well as, the location PALS webbing. The difference in location
of the PALS forced participants to carry the majority of their fighting load differently for each MFR
which may have an impact on their range of motion. In the objective range of motion measures
there were no significant differences between any of the MFRs. The range of motion measures used
were focused at the hip with the addition of the shoulder adduction measurement. The mean range
of motion differences with respect to the hip were very small (2- 3°) between the MFRs which may
be due to a number of reasons. One explanation is that all the MFRs evaluated offer similar load
carriage options around the hip which did not create a significant difference of bulk at the hip.
Another explanation is that the MFR may not be the limiting factor in hip motion as they all rode
higher on the body when compared to the underlying fragmentation vest. Since, the current inservice tactical vest was not evaluated we cannot conclude whether these MFRs resulted in a
significant decrease in range of motion compared to the current tactical vest. The lack of significant
difference in shoulder adduction can be justified by the vast majority of the participants carried very
few items on the shoulder straps (mainly just small radio) that would impact their movement at the
shoulder.
Page 50
Across all of the combat tasks that were evaluated (march, patrol, FIBUA assault, gunfighter drills,
obstacle course) MFR A1 was the most preferred vest with the highest ratings across the vast
majority of the criteria evaluated. MFR A1 is also the vest that most closely resembles the current
in-service tactical vest which may account for why it was rated so highly. As previously mentioned
the majority of the participants in this study only had experience with in-service tactical vest and
did not have a significant problem with it so they would be inclined to prefer a similar design.
Participants also preferred the front opening style of MFR A1 as they did not have to remove their
helmet to don and doff the vest as they had to with MFR A2, and MFR C. The front opening style
of MFR also allows participants to don and doff the vest without the aid of another person. The
participants in this trial did not like side opening vests with the waist attachment/adjustment pushed
to the back as it required a buddy to engage the side release buckles. If soldiers in combat need to
rapidly don or doff their tactical vest it is not practical for it to be a two person operation. Even
though MFR A1 was the most preferred vest across all tasks, MFR C was rated highly (second in
most tasks) across all the tasks while MFR F was rated as the worst MFR for most of the tasks.
Participants also had problems with the comfort of MFR F during the combat tasks as it had mean
ratings that were unacceptable for both physical and thermal comfort across all of the tasks. It is
surprising that MFR F would have unacceptable rating for thermal comfort as it covers a lot less
real estate in the front as compared to some of the other MFRs. Participants mentioned that they did
notice that MFR A1 was cooler due to its mesh material. MFR F was also rated as unacceptable for
all the criteria during the obstacle course as many participants noted that it was very unstable and
moved around a lot. Additionally, with the instability of MFR F, a number of participants noted that
since the majority of the load carried on MFR F was around the waist level it caused the vest to shift
down which in turn caused the back panel of the vest to chafe against the neck causing significant
physical discomfort, which was rated fairly high on the pain scale.
With the amount of load that soldiers have to carry it could be assumed that MFRs with more PALS
real estate would be preferred. For the most part vests with more PALS real estate (MFR A2 and
MFR C) were preferred over the vests with less PALS real estate (MFR A3 and F). However, MFR
A1 was the most accepted vest, which falls in the middle of the five conditions in terms of PALS real
estate. A total of three participants were measured for bulk at the waist and chest for all the
conditions and compared against the fragmentation vest. All of the MFR conditions added very little
bulk around the chest area (with a maximum variation of 10 – 20 cm), while there was far greater
difference at the waist level where differences were a minimum of 30 cm up to a maximum of almost
80 cm. This is not surprising considering that most of the fighting load is carried at the waist level but
this will likely have an impact on soldiers fitting into the hatches of vehicles. However, during the
vehicle dismount portion of this trial participants did not wear the MFR while in the crew
commander and gunners hatch and could only don it once they were dismounted. There was not a
clear distinction between the MFRs as to which one was more bulky at the waist and chest. Since, the
MFRs offer total modularity on the placement of pouches the variable that contributes the most to
waist and chest circumference may be personal preference in pouch placement.
Overall, the participants preferred MFR A1 as the most acceptable vest. Participants noted that all
of the features of A1 were acceptable for combat except for the current extraction handle. Since
MFR A1 is a part of the A system of front and back panels it can be interchanged with either one of
the back panels from MFR A2 or A3. Participants were then queried on whether the entire A system
was necessary for fielding and they noted that only certain parts are necessary. The participants
agreed that the only front panels that are necessary were from MFR A1 and A2, thus eliminating the
webbing style front panel from MFR A3. Participants also agreed that the only back panel that they
would need was from MFR A2. Therefore, out of the six panels (3 front and 3 back) these
participants thought that only three panels to would need to be supplied accommodate the majority
of the soldiers.
Page 51
The overall results obtained in this pilot trial were very similar to the results obtained at the SME
jury in July 2009. At the SME jury participants rated MFR A system as the top choice followed by
MFR C and MFR F which were identical to the results that were obtained in this trial. MFR A1 and
A2 were definitely a step forward for the participants and A3 was deemed as unnecessary while
MFR C was rated as ‘barely acceptable’ and MFR F was rated as ‘barely unacceptable’. However,
due to the fact that the participants in this trial were fairly inexperienced, all of the MFRs included
in this trial should be tested in future user trials with a mixture of experienced and inexperienced
soldiers.
5.1
Comparisons to SME Jury Results
The results between the pilot trial and the SME jury cannot be compared directly based on a number
of variables that differed between the studies (i.e. number of participants, tasks completed, number
of MFRs evaluated, time spent with each MFR, and experience). However, a generic meta-analysis
can be performed. The acceptability ratings from the final exit questionnaire of the pilot were
compared to the ratings gathered at the SME jury on the same questions – see Figure 30 to Figure
34.
The comparison of the ratings for the tactical vest shows some similar patterns between the two
studies. The pattern of results between the SME jury and pilot trial were almost identical where
modularity and configurability, and capacity were rated the lowest. However, the SME jury results
for the tactical vest were more unacceptable compared to the pilot trial. This may be due to the fact
the SME jury participants had significantly more experience than the pilot trial participants and
were able to gauge the performance of the tactical vest based on more operational experience. They
may also be more familiar with other vest systems that outperform the current in-service tactical
vest while the majority of the participants from the pilot trial only had experience with the inservice tactical vest.
Analyzing the results of the 5 MFR systems evaluated in the pilot trial to the results of the same
MFR systems in the SME jury show some interesting results. The results for MFR A2, A3, and C
are almost identical between the two study groups. In fact the ratings for stability, and mobility and
ROM are almost identical between the participants from the SME jury and the participants from the
pilot trial for those MFRs. This is interesting considering the SME jury group did not perform any
combat tasks or physical activities that would provide an effective test for the stability and mobility
of the MFR. This would suggest that as soldiers gain more experience they become good evaluators
of certain types of equipment without performing the associated dynamic tasks.
The results from MFR A1 and F do not show the equivalent results between the two study groups as
the other MFRs but the results are indeed similar (within an average of 1 acceptability rating). For
MFR A1 the pilot trial group had higher acceptance ratings compared to the SME jury while for
MFR F they had lower acceptance ratings compared to the SME jury. A possible explanation for
this slight discrepancy in inter-study ratings for MFR A1 and MFR F is the basis for which these
ratings were taken. The SME jury group were asked to evaluate the MFR systems with the current
in-service tactical vest as a baseline for comparison. Therefore, all of their ratings were calibrated
towards the in-service tactical vest. Meanwhile, the pilot trial participants did not use the in-service
tactical vest as a baseline and were instead instructed to provide an evaluation of the MFRs
compared to one another. Therefore, the pilot trial participants rated the MFRs so that there was a
‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ between the MFRs. Therefore, one MFR would come out on top (MFR A1)
and one would come out of the bottom (MFR F). It is a possibility that if more MFR systems were
included into the pilot trial evaluation the results for MFR A1 and MFR F for the SME jury and
pilot trial would converge.
Page 52
Even though there were many variables that were different between the SME jury and the pilot trial,
the SME jury proved to be an effective method to down select systems without the resources of
conducting a full user trial. The participants in the SME jury were able to provide similar subjective
evaluations of the MFRs while having a significantly less amount of time with each MFR when
compared to the pilot trial participants. A significant reason as to why this SME jury was so
successful was the operational experience of the SMEs; therefore, one of the factors that directly
affect the success of future SME juries is the operational experience of the participants. It should be
noted that even though SME juries provide a sound base for evaluations without the resources of a
full user trial a full user is still necessary to confirm the performance of the systems during example
combat tasks.
As previously mentioned the fighting load used in the pilot trial was determined from the results of
the SME jury. The SME jury emphasized the deficiency of the in-service tactical vest to carry the
fighting load. The SME jury down selected the MFR systems without testing the systems with the
fighting load that they developed. In the pilot trial participants were not required to evaluate the in
service tactical vest with the fighting load used on the other MFR systems thereby not providing a
true rating of the in-service tactical while using the same fighting load used on the MFR systems.
There is a possibility that if the SME jury were required to assemble each of the MFR systems with
the load they determined that it may have altered the ratings of some of the MFRs.
Tactical Vest Ratings
7
Acceptability Rating
6
5
4
3
2
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
D
ur
ab
il it
y
&
M
C
Bu
lk
t
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
C
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
ap
ac
ity
C
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
of
U
&
C
Ea
se
St
ab
il it
y
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
1
Jury Avg
Pilot Trial AVG
Figure 29: Tactical Vest Ratings Comparison
Page 53
Page 54
C
D
&
M
C
t
Bu
lk
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
ap
ac
ity
C
C
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
ur
ab
il it
y
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
&
of
U
St
ab
il it
y
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
Ea
se
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
C
D
&
M
C
Bu
lk
t
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
ap
ac
ity
C
C
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
ur
ab
il it
y
of
U
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
&
St
ab
il it
y
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
Ea
se
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
7.0
MFR A1 Results
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Jury Avg
Pilot Trial AVG
Figure 30: MFR A1 Ratings Comparison
MFR A2 Ratings
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Jury Avg
Pilot Trial Avg
C
D
&
M
C
t
Bu
lk
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
ap
ac
ity
C
C
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
ur
ab
il it
y
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
&
of
U
St
ab
il it
y
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
Ea
se
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
C
D
&
M
C
Bu
lk
t
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
ap
ac
ity
C
C
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
ur
ab
il it
y
of
U
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
&
St
ab
il it
y
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
Ea
se
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
7.0
MFR A3 Results
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Jury Avg
Pilot Trial Avg
MFR C Results
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Pilot Trial Avg
Jury Avg
Figure 33: MFR C Ratings Comparison
Page 55
MFR F Results
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
ai
nt
en
M
an
at
ce
er
ia
lP
ro
pe
rti
es
O
ve
ra
ll
R
at
in
g
Jury Avg
D
ur
ab
il it
y
&
M
C
Bu
lk
t
om
pa
ti b
il it
y
om
fo
r
C
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
ap
ac
ity
C
se
on
f ig
ur
ab
i lit
M
y
ob
i li
ty
&
R
O
M
of
U
&
C
Ea
se
St
ab
il it
y
M
od
ul
ar
ity
Fi
t&
Ad
ju
st
ab
ili t
y
1.0
Pilot Trial
Figure 34: MFR F Ratings Comparison
5.2
Future Evaluation Recommendations
One of the main goals of the pilot trial was to standardize the testing and to identify any deficiencies
that can be addressed prior to the future user trial. Recommendations on future evaluation testing
are detailed below.
5.2.1
Generic Approach
Future testing should retain the use of a repeated measures design experimentation approach with
balanced order of presentation.
In this trial participants assessed the MFRs as a rifleman and as a C9gunner or as a commander and
as a grenadier. If possible in future trials subjects should assess the MFRs either as a dedicated
rifleman, grenadier, C9 gunner or commander.
5.2.2
Test Conditions
One the issues experienced in this trial was that under the time constraints participants did not have
a sufficient amount of time to familiarize themselves with the MFRs. The vast majority of the
participants had not used a modular tactical vest prior to this trial and were unsure of the optimal
placement of the pouches. Therefore, as the trial progressed participants may have placed their
pouches differently than they did at the beginning which may have biased their earlier results.
However, since the study design was balanced for order of conditions this effect should have been
minimized. Nonetheless, in the future trial participants should receive a full day of training and
familiarization with the MFRs.
The participants in this trial favoured the vest style format of MFR A1 compared to the other vests.
This may be due to the fact that these participants were more accepting of the in-service tactical vest
Page 56
more than the SME jury was. In the SME jury there were only two vest options that were evaluated
with one being MFR A1 and the other being the in service tactical vest with PALS webbing replacing
the pouches. If the vest style is preferred among participants it would be beneficial to evaluate all of
the vest style tactical vests from different manufacturers (e.g. Blackhawk, T.A.G., Eagle Industries) to
confirm that the most suitable vest style options for Canadian soldiers is chosen.
It is recommended that the current tactical vest as a baseline condition in future MFR testing
Based on the results of this trial it is recommended that a new A system (MFR A4) be tested. The
new system should include the front panel of A1 and the interchangeable back panels of A1 and A2.
One of the biggest challenges to the pilot trial was to come up with appropriate surrogates for items
that could not be procured or obtained ahead of time (e.g. smoke grenades, 200rd drums, AN/PRC
152). For the future user trial better surrogates need to be identified for size and weight so that the
load remains consistent between the trial and what soldiers would carry in current operations. It is
mandatory that all soldiers be issued current in-service radios and the Clothe the Soldier rucksack.
This would eliminate any bias in results between participants that have different equipment and it
would also allow for accurate compatibility evaluations with current in-service equipment and not
past versions.
One of the aims of this pilot trial was to identify preferred location of the various pouches. This was
challenging for a number of the novice soldiers. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for pouch
placement should be developed a head of time for the next trial so that as a minimum pouches are
located where “experts” would want them. This will facilitate learning and skills acquisition.
This pilot trial purposely did not address the performance of specific pouches. Given the
differences between pouches for similar loads, future trials should examine pouch performance
once a base MFR is selected.
5.2.3
Assessment Protocol
Participants only had a single day of use with each of the MFR systems which may not be enough
time to fully experience the MFR condition and uncover more extended wear problems. Increasing
their exposure to each of the MFRs will give them more time to optimally place the load items and
provide a better evaluation of the MFR. Longer exposure to each of the MFRs will also give the
testers the ability to expand their testing methods to encourage disparity between the MFRs for
criteria, such as comfort and fit retention. It is therefore recommended that in future trials
participants should have at the minimum 2 days of evaluation time with each MFR. Participants
also mentioned that they should orient themselves with the MFR prior to the addition of the
fragmentation vest as it causes some encumbrance and bulk issues for soldiers who are trying to
familiarize themselves with the MFR. Participants of future trials should be provided with one day
of training and familiarization of the MFRs without the use of the fragmentation vest.
5.2.4
Test Stands
The pilot trial utilized a number of standard tests used in previous load carriage/fighting rig evaluations.
Range of Motion – Limited differences in ROM were observed for the MFRs assessed. If future
MFRs are similar in appearance then this test stand could be dropped if required. It should be noted
however that the MFRs were not evaluated with a load belt and the addition of an auxiliary belt
could negatively impact ROM and thus necessitate the inclusion of this test stand. Shoulder ROM
was not assessed in this trial; full coverage vest designs could impact shoulder adduction and
Page 57
abduction. In summary future MFR designs should be examined ahead of the trial to confirm the
ROM test required.
Static Weapons Compatibility – The compatibility of the weapons used in this trial were evaluated
subjectively. While the Small Arms Trainer (SAT) could be used to objectively assess
compatibility on a number of weapon systems (C7, C9, and C6) experience has shown that simple
ratings are more efficient and effective. This trial witnessed the use of the Canadian Gunfighter
drills during C7A2 compatibility assessments. It is believed that these drills should be utilized in
the future along with the more traditional prone and kneeling static tests. Forcing participants to
pivot, change firing positions, magazines, etc. is believed to be an improvement in test approach.
Equipment Access – This pilot trial did not rigorously assess the ease and speed of magazine,
grenade, equipment access from the pouches provided with the MFRs. Given the multitude of pouch
designs, after selection of a base MFR, future trials need to specifically address pouch performance.
Load Carriage Equipment – Due to time constraints this pilot trial did not rigorously assess the
compatibility of the MFRs with rucksacks, patrol packs, hydration systems, cold weather clothing,
etc. Future trials need to assess compatibility with these items in a more thorough manner. It is
recommended that future forced marches be longer in duration. As well, patrol packs (with
appropriate loads) should be assessed during a patrol/ambush task.
Vehicle Compatibility – Due to time constraints this pilot trial did not rigorously assess the
compatibility of the MFRs with other armoured vehicles or logistic vehicles. The worn MFRs
should be assessed in the air sentry position of the LAV III and the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle.
The MFRs should also be assessed in the driver and passenger positions of the various LF support
vehicle fleet (LUVW, LSVW, MLVW, HLVW). The impact of MFR bulk on passenger seating
should be formally assessed in combat vehicle and support aircraft (helicopters and C130s).
Safety equipment – Due to time constraints this pilot trial did not rigorously assess the compatibility
of the MFRs with in-service floatation devices. The design of the MFRs and the actual loads now
carried by soldiers may reduce the effectiveness of in-service life vests in still and moving water
scenarios. Buoyancy and static compatibility tests should be performed.
Dismounted Patrol – This pilot trial utilized a dismounted patrol as a dynamic test stand. Future
trials should retain this stand but incorporate other compatibility test items. While further realism
and objective measures could be provided by the use of Weapons Effects Simulators (WES), the
current LF WES system requires the use of a dedicated vest which would be incompatible with the
purpose of the trial. There are however other weapons engagement simulation systems – SIMLAS
Plus which utilize harnesses that attach to vests which may be useful. DRDC Toronto purchased a
number of systems for the previous SIREQ TDP that may still be of use.
MOUT Assault – This pilot trial utilized a MOUT assault using blanks as a dynamic test stand.
Future trials should retain this stand but incorporate other compatibility test items. Further realism
and objective measures could be provided by the use of compatible WES systems described above.
Additionally, another approach used in previous trials was the use of Simunition FX ammunition
for either force on force engagements or room clearing tests using static targets. Test protocols
would force magazine changing, use of training grenades, etc. The objective of future tests would
be to capture both hit and timing data.
Obstacle Course – Future trials should retain the use of the formal obstacle course test stand.
Previous trials have also incorporated the use of a MOUT obstacle course to great success. The
MOUT obstacle course includes breach hole entry, window entry, wall traverse, climbing tasks,
movement through rubble-ized houses, culverts etc. The MOUT obstacle course may be a suitable
alternative or addition to the conventional obstacle course.
Page 58
Live Fire Run Downs – Future trials should retain this task. Due to range constraints, this pilot trial
could not replicate the run-down task as per the LF shooting program. Ranges should be utilized
that allow participants to run down from the 400m and complete the shooting program at the 25m
firing line.
This trial evaluated C9s using the run down evaluation format. Future trials should retain this
evaluation approach both for the C9gunners and M203 grenadiers. Grenadiers should be required
to shoot their rifle and fire practice grenades (inert).
Live Fire Tactical Shooting – Future trials should retain this task. Due to range constraints, this
pilot trial could not assess tactical shooting performance. Future trials should utilize the gunfighter
shooting serials as proposed.
5.2.5
Subjects
Due to competing trials this pilot MFR trial only had 14 participants. Future trials should involve a
larger, dedicated group of subjects. As mentioned earlier the optimum approach would be to use
subjects as dedicated commanders, riflemen, C9gunners and grenadiers.
A power analysis using the final overall results comparing MFR A1 and the in service TV suggest a
minimum sample size of 9 participants (by role) to identify significant differences (at a power goal
of .90 and .05 Type I error rate. Note the population S.D. (Sigma) utilized was the average of the
MFR A1 and the TV). Thus a statistically more rigorous approach will require a subject pool of at
least 36-40 participants (9-10 participants for each role).
Ideally future trials should recruit participants that are currently in grenadier billets (9-10), C9
billets (9-10), rifleman billets (9-10) and commanders (9-10).
Another area of concern was the lack of operational experience that the participants had. Of the 14
participants there were only 3 that had operational experience. The vast majority of the participants
had not been exposed to any modular vests before and were unaware of the increase in load
requirements that soldiers face in current operations. There were also a number of participants that
were unaware of the Canadian Army Gunfighter Program and had to be trained during the trial. It
would be beneficial that in the future user trial the experience of the subjects reflect that of the LF.
As a minimum at least 50% of the participants should have at least one tour of combat experience.
Furthermore, all participants need to be qualified in the Canadian Army Gunfighter Program.
To eliminate the possibility of bias between the different infantry regiments across Canada it would
be beneficial to have a section (8 man) from each infantry regiment as well as a combat support
arms section as participants. The four sections would then form a modified platoon structure with a
leadership element (Lieutenant, a Platoon Warrant Officer) and section members-, 4 Sergeants, 4
Master Corporals, 8 Corporals, and 20-24 Privates for a total of 36 to 40 participants. This would
allow participants to assess the MFRs in a dedicated role. The enlarged platoon structure would
allow a section to act as an enemy force when required.
Page 59
6. References
1. Chamberland, A., Carrier, R., Forest, F., and Hachez, G. (1997). Anthropometric Survey of
the Land Forces, DCIEM Report No. 98-CR-15.
2. Ste Croix, C., Morton, A., and Angel, H.A. (2010). Modular Fighting Rig and Pouches Subject Matter Expert Jury 14-16 July 2009, DRDC Toronto CR 2010-208, August 2009.
Page 60
Annex A: Questionnaires
Questionnaire Type
Page
MFR Feature Questionnaire
MFR A1
MFR A2
MFR A3
MFR C
MFR F
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
Live Fire Questionnaire (Fr)
A-8
Post-task Questionnaire (Fr)
A-9
Physical Comfort Questionnaire (Fr)
A-10
Thermal Comfort Questionnaire (Fr)
A-11
MFR Summary/Daily Exit Questionnaire (Fr)
A-12
Trial Exit Questionnaire (Fr)
A-14
Page A- 1
Page 2
Page A- 3
Page 4
Page A- 5
Page 6
Page A- 7
Page 8
Page A- 9
Page 10
Page A- 11
Page 12
Page A- 13
Page 14
Page A- 15
Page 16
Page A- 17

DRDC-RDDC-2015-C247 Modular Fighting Rig (MFR) Pilot Trial

Transcription

Similar documents

Newsl - Highland BlindCraft

Dovre 500 MFR/MFF Cast Iron Multifuel Stoves

save 20% 2 for $28 only $2999 FREE save $5 only$2399

save 20 - Toys R Us

Exercise/Physical Therapy - GoodPill Pharmacy and Medical Supply

328 - Applied

Skin Care - Brown and Welin Pharmacy